JASKAURSINGH GANGASINGH ATWALversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:18466
              Dilwale                                     1                  3-WP-7642-16.odt




                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                 3 WRIT PETITION NO. 7642 OF 2016

                                Jaskaursingh Gangasingh Atwal
                                             VERSUS
                              The State Of Maharashtra And Others
                                                ...
             Advocate for the Petitioner : Ms. Priyanka R. Dubey h/f Mr. Munde
             Suresh W.
             AGP for Respondents: Mr. B. A. Shinde
             Advocate for Respondents : Mr. Gangakhedkar Shailendra S
                                                ...

                                    CORAM         : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                    DATE          : 08.04.2026

             PER COURT :
             1.      Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.

             2.      The present petition takes an exception to the order dated

             09.12.2015 passed by the National Consumer Dispute Redressal

             Commission, Delhi in Revision Petition No. 1380/2015, whereby the

             revision filed by the respondent nos.2 and 3 came to be allowed thereby

             directing the respondent nos.2 and 3 to refund the flat amount of Rs.

             50,000/- to the petitioner.

             3.      The learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Dubey h/f Mr. Munde

             submits that the petitioner filed consumer redressal grievance before the

             forum by contending that the respondent bank forcibly took possession of

             the vehicle and did not follow the legal procedure while taking

             possession. As the petitioner had purchased vehicle car Alto LXI BS-IV
 Dilwale                                     2                   3-WP-7642-16.odt


having Registration No. MH20 BN 5813 by taking finance from the

respondent nos. 2 and 3.

4.     The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

had borrowed loan of amount of Rs. 2,30,000/- and the petitioner has to

pay an amount of Rs. 6,270/- towards monthly instalments payment. The

petitioner gave 36 blank cheques to the respondent nos. 2 and 3. The

petitioner paid monthly instalment from 15.09.2010 to 15.12.2011 and

there was no single default. It is the contention of the petitioner that the

respondent nos. 2 and 3 had not deposited the cheques from December

2011, therefore, the petitioner made payment by cash on 01.02.2012 an

amount of Rs. 6,200/-, on 02.03.2012 an amount of Rs. 6,300/-, on

09.04.2012 an amount of Rs. 6,300/- and on 30.06.2012 an amount of

Rs. 11,800/-, therefore, he submits that till the month of June 2012, the

petitioner paid the amount of instalments. He further submits that the

petitioner could not pay the instalment for the month of July 2012 and

therefore, on 01.08.2012 the respondent nos. 2 and 3 through their agent

forcibly took possession of vehicle when the petitioner was driving it,

though the petitioner had informed the respondent no. 2 that he was

ready to pay the instalment and the remaining amount, but the

respondent nos. 2 and 3 sold out the said vehicle without intimation to

the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner filed complaint before the District

Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Aurangabad. The District Consumer

Forum allowed the complaint of the petitioner thereby directing the
 Dilwale                                    3                  3-WP-7642-16.odt


respondent nos. 2 and 3 to pay the entire loan amount deposited by the

petitioner with 6% interest from 01.08.2012 within 30 days from the date

of receipt of the order. The said order was assailed before the State

Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission which came to be dismissed.

Being aggrieved by the same the respondents herein filed revision before

the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission. The National

Commission vide its order dated 09.12.2015 modified the order and

directed the company to pay an amount of Rs. 50,000/- only. The said

order was passed without hearing to the petitioner.

5.     The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the

learned District Consumer Forum and the State Consumer Forum have

rightly considered the matter but the learned National Commission

disposed of the matter without giving hearing to the petitioner. She

further submits that the National Commission has not recorded any

finding as to why it came to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled

to receive only Rs. 50,000/- though in fact the petitioner has proved that

up to June 2012, the petitioner has paid instalments. These facts were

already considered by the District Consumer Forum and appreciated by

State Consumer Commission but the National Commission modified the

order without recording proper reasons and therefore, she submits that

the petition needs to be allowed, thereby setting aside the order passed

by National Commission.

6.     Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. Gangakhedkar,
    Dilwale                                          4                      3-WP-7642-16.odt


supports the order passed by the National Commission Redressal and in

support of his contention, he relied upon the law laid down by the

Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Magma Fincorp Limited v. Rajesh

Kumar Tiwari,1 the paragraph No. 92 of which reads as under:

        “92. In the instant case, there is no evidence of any loss suffered by the
        complainant by reason of non-receipt of notice. Admittedly, several
        instalments, remained unpaid. After repossession the complainant contacted
        the financier and was informed of the reasons for the repossession. He only
        made an offer to pay outstanding instalments and gave an assurance to pay
        future instalments in time. If the financier was not agreeable to accept the
        offer, the financier was within its rights under the hire-purchase agreement.
        This is not a case where payment had been tendered by the hirer but not
        accepted by the financier/lender. The complainant had not tendered
        payment.”



          By contending that the petitioner herein has not led the evidence

before the District Consumer Forum that he has incurred any loss and

therefore, he submits that the learned National Commission has already

rightly considered the matter.

7.        Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and

after going through the order passed by the National Commission, I find

that the National Commission, while modifying the order, has considered

only the fact that the petitioner has used the vehicle almost for 2 years

without having paid the entire price of the vehicle therefore, on this

ground National Commission directed the respondent to pay Rs.

50,000/-. The learned District Consumer Redressal Forum has recorded

the finding and considering the issue involved, I find that it is necessary

to refer the extract from the order passed by the District Consumer

1    2020 (10) SCC 399
 Dilwale                                            5                       3-WP-7642-16.odt


Forum, which is as follows:

     “Complainant's grievance is that the respondent bank forcibly took
     possession of the vehicle and did not follow the legal procedure while
     taking possession. It is not disputed that the respondent took the possession
     of vehicle while the complainant was travelling to Pune. The vehicle was
     financed by the respondent under Hypothecation. Under Hypothecation,
     the ownership and possession of hypothecated property remains with the
     borrower i.e with complainant in present case.Respondent only have a
     flating charge on the vehicle. In order to convert this floating charge into
     fixec, it is necessary to obtain its possession. Since the ownership of vehicle
     is with the complainant, its possession must be taken with express consent
     of complainant or under the order of the Court.There is nothing on record
     to show that the respondent took the possession of vehicle in question with
     the express consent of the complainant. On the contrary the circumstances
     show that its possession was taken without consent of complainant-owner.
     In case of Hire-purchase type of loan, financer can take possession of
     vehicle because ownership of such vehicle remains with the financer.
     Present case is of Hypothecation and not of Hire Purchase. Respondent
     cannot take possession of vehicle as the ownership of vehicle is not with
     respondent but with the complainant. Respondent can take possession of
     vehicle only with express consent of complainant or under order of court in
     case of assets financed under Hypothecation charge. No doubt the
     complainant in the present case is a defaulter of the respondent. Therefore
     respondent has a right to recover the due money. Application of force
     cannot be justified even after presuming that the complainant is defaulter
     and respondent has right to recover the loan. Because such application of
     force by private parties will give rise to a problem of law and order.
     Respondent's action of informing police coes not legalize the illegal act of
     respondent of taking possession of vehicle in illegal manner. Because action
     of taking possession without order of court cr without express consent of
     owner is illegal. The respondent has taken law in his hands for taking
     possession of vehicle. Therefore the respondent is definitely deficient in
     taking possession of car and causing mental agony to the complainant.

     Admittedly, respondent has sold the vehicle after taking its possession. It is
     necessary to find out as to how can the respondent sell an asset whose
     ownership is not with them. An instrument by which a vehicle is sold is
     known as TTO form. Generally, the financer (respondent in present case)
     obtains signatures of owner-borrower (complainant) ion blank TTO forms
     at the time of sanctioning the loan. Subsequently it is used in order to sell
     the vehicle. Though this is a general practice followed by most of the
     financers, it is illegal. Obtaining signature of consumer on blank form is not
     permitted under any law. In the present case, respondent did not prove that
     complainant gave his signature on TTO forms for selling the vehicle after
     respondent took the possession. This enables us to draw a logical
     conclusion that the respondent has obtained the signatures, of the
     complainant-owner prior to respondents taking of its possession
     consequently he could sell the vehicle. During the course of argument, it
     was revealed that respondent they had obtained signatures of complainant
     initially while the loan was sanctioned for selling the vehicle. Blank TO
     forms are not inchoate negotiable instruments. Therefore selling the vehicle
 Dilwale                                           6                       3-WP-7642-16.odt

     by using pre signed Blank TTO forms, obtained in advance does not give
     better title to the purchaser since the signature of real owner is obtained
     without his concurrence. Anyhow, our findings are relevant only to the
     extent of drawing a conclusion that respondent followed unfair trade
     practice in selling the vehicle as the vehicle is sold without concurrence of
     real owner.

     We have also made scrutiny of statement of transactions. The client
     statement, as submitted by the respondent, is very difficult to interpret even
     to an expert. Respondent company was advised on three occasions to
     prepare an account statement as per procedure followed by Banks.
     Accountant of the company was called to explain various entries. This was
     necessary to understand the actual amount payable by the complainant on
     the date of seizure, on the date of pre sale notice and on the date of sale of
     vehicle. It was also needed to find out exact amount, of default by the
     complainant. Respondent submitted the repayment schedule. But it does
     not reveal the true statement of account. Respondent failed to show by way
     of account statement as to how the complainant was required to pay Rs.
     1,93,607/- on 07/08/2012. Client statement produced by the respondent
     indicates a closing credit of Rs. 141031/- where as it says that the vehicle
     was sold for Rs. 125000/- and booked a loss of Rs. 66693/-. This is not
     supported by the account statement. Respondent failed to explain about
     accounting of amount of Rs. 6200/- deposited by the complainant on
     01/02/2012 and Rs. 6300/- of 02.03.2012. This all leads us to draw an
     inference that the respondent is concealing true facts. Account is not
     maintained properly ana correctly. This Forum therefore comes to a
     conclusion that there is no transparency in the dealing of respondent. It is
     the right of consumer 1o be heard and informed. Respondent failed to
     impart true information of amount outstanding, matching with account
     statement. Consumer needs to the protested against unfair practices and
     deficiency in services. Respondent has already sclaff the vehicle. Therefore
     it is not possible to pass an order directing the complainant to pay the
     balance installments and repossess the vehicle.”



       The above findings of the District Consumer Order are confirmed

by the State Commission. As regards the law laid down by the Hon’ble

Apex Court in the matter of Magma Fincorp Limited (supra) is concerned,

in that case, there was continuous default on the part of the consumer,

but herein in this case only one instalment was not paid for the month of

July 2012 and therefore, considering the facts involved in the present

petition, with due respect, the said judgment is not applicable to the

present case. As regards the facts which are involved in the petition are
 Dilwale                                   7                 3-WP-7642-16.odt


concerned, admittedly the respondents have taken possession only on the

ground that there was default in payment of one instalment.

Consequently, the possession was taken from the petitioner and the same

was sold even without intimation to the petitioner and therefore, it

reveals that there was high-handedness at the hands of respondent nos. 2

and 3. Therefore, I find that the order passed by the District Consumer

Forum is a well-reasoned order but the learned National Consumer

Commission has modified the order without recording any reasons.

Therefore I am inclined to allow the writ petition by setting aside the

order passed by the National Commission.

8.     In view thereof, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated

09.12.2015 passed by the National Consumer Dispute Redressal

Commission, Delhi in Revision Petition No. 1380/2015 is quashed and set

aside. The order dated 03.08.2013 passed by District Consumer Dispute

Redressal Forum, Aurangabad in Complaint Case No.325/2012 is

confirmed.



                                       [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
                                                 JUDGE