1.       This Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), by the Complainant, is directed against the order dated 20.07.2007, passed by the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeal No. 305/1996.  By the impugned order, the State Commission has overturned the order dated 10.06.2005, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raigargh (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint Case No. 3 of 2005.  By the said order, the District Forum, while accepting the Complaint, filed by the Petitioner herein, alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent/Finance & Leasing Company, namely, Magma Leasing Ltd., in repossessing the vehicle in question, namely, Tata Sumo on 02.02.2004 and selling it without issuing any notice, before repossession or sale, had directed the Leasing Company to return the said vehicle to the Complainant and also pay a compensation @ ₹700/- per day to him from 29.01.2004 till the date of delivery of possession as also a sum of ₹10,000/- as compensation for physical and mental agony due to taking away of the means of livelihood along with costs of litigation.

2.       The State Commission, while accepting the Appeal, filed by the Leasing Company, has reversed the order passed by the District Forum on two grounds, namely, (i) the vehicle had been repossessed and resold after service of pre-sale notice on the Complainant; and (ii) it was stated before it by Counsel for the Leasing Company that on the matter being referred by the parties to the Arbitrator, an award had been made and, therefore, in light of the said award the matter stood settled.

3.       Questioning the correctness of the order impugned in this Revision Petition, it is submitted by learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner/Complainant that the order stands vitiated, as both the afore-noted grounds are factually incorrect.  It is asserted that there is not an iota of evidence adduced by the Leasing Company in support of its stand that before repossession of the vehicle, a notice was issued to the Complainant, and no award has been made by the Arbitrator so far.  Further, the Leasing Company had not only misled the State Commission on the question of making of the award of the Arbitrator, in fact on the basis of the same stand on behalf of the Leasing Company, this Commission, while dismissing the Revision Petition vide order dated 22.11.2007, had also observed that on the matter being referred to the Arbitrator, an award had been given by him.

4.       Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the Leasing Company, while supporting the impugned order, has submitted that since the Complainant had not admittedly paid all the EMIs and was a defaulter on the date when the vehicle was repossessed, under the terms and condition in the hire purchase agreement the Leasing Company was authorized to repossess the vehicle, without issuing any notice to the Complainant.  In support of the submission, learned Counsel has placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Managing Director, Orix Auto Finance (India) Ltd. v. Jagmander Singh And Anr., (2006) 2 SCC 598, and Suryapal Singh v. Siddha Vinayak Motors & Anr., II (2012) CPJ 8 (SC).  However, while asserting that before putting the vehicle to auction, a notice was in fact issued to the Complainant, which the Complainant allegedly refused to accept, it is candidly admitted by the learned Counsel that no notice was issued to the Complainant before repossessing the vehicle.   

5.       Having bestowed our anxious consideration to the facts at hand and bearing in mind the ratio of a Three Judge Bench decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Citicorp Maruti Finance Ltd. v. S. Vijaylaxmi, (2012) 1 SCC 1, we are of the opinion that the order impugned in this Revision Petition cannot be sustained.  In the said decision, while dealing with an identical case, where the Complainant had availed the benefit of hire purchase in respect of a Maruti Omni Car, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, relying on its earlier decision in ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Prakash Kaur, (2007) 2 SCC 711, has reiterated that even in case of mortgaged goods subject to hire purchase agreement, the recovery process has to be in accordance with law and the recovery process referred to in the agreements also contemplates such recovery to be effected by due procedure of law and not by use of force.

6.       Thus, it needs little emphasis that before repossessing the goods, which may be subject matter of a hire purchase agreement, a due notice has to be issued to the Complainant/Defaulter, before repossessing the same.

7.       In light of the said authoritative pronouncement by a Larger Bench, we are of the view that in the instant case, since admittedly no pre-repossession notice had been issued by the Leasing Company to the Complainant, the repossession was without the authority of law.

8.       Having arrived at the said conclusion, the next question arising for consideration is as to what relief the Complainant is entitled to, as the vehicle in question has already been sold by the Leasing Company.  Having regard to the fact that the Complainant had admittedly used the vehicle for almost two years, we are of the opinion that the direction to pay the cost of the vehicle in question would not be justified.  In our view, it would be just and fair if the Leasing Company is directed to refund to the Complainant the Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the vehicle disclosed by the Complainant at the time of taking insurance policy for second year of its purchase.  Further, though the vehicle had been sold by the Leasing Company even before the filing of the Complaint but neither a complete statement of Complainant’s account nor the amount for which the vehicle had been sold was placed before the District Forum.  In fact, it is submitted by learned Counsel appearing for the Leasing Company that as per his instructions, at one point of time, the Leasing Company was prepared to refund a sum of ₹80,000/- to the Complainant.  Taking all these factors into consideration, we are of the view that it would be equitable and just to direct the Leasing Company to pay interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on the IDV of the vehicle, which has been directed to be refunded, from the date of filing of the Complaint till realization.

9.       Consequently, the Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned order is modified to the extent indicated above. 

10.     The amount due to be paid to the Complainant in terms of this order shall be remitted within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the aforesaid amount, as directed, shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of this order till realization.   

11.     The Revision Petition stands disposed of in the above terms, with costs, quantified at ₹10,000/-.