R.S. Sharma, J. - (1.)THIS appeal is directed against order dated 11.10.2012, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum") in Complaint Case No. C.C. 12/20. By the impugned judgment, the learned District Forum, has partly allowed the complaint and directed the OPs to pay a sum of Rs. 1,12,904 within a month from the date of order, along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 24.1.2012 till date of payment to the complainant. It has further been directed to the O.P. to pay Rs. 5,000 as compensation for mental agony and Rs. 2,000 as cost of litigation to the complainants. Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint filed by the complainant before the District Forum are: that the complainant Rajendra Kumar Mishra purchased a second hand Maruti 800 Car, bearing registration Number C.G. 04 -B -7358 with the help of financial assistance provided by the OPs and loan of Rs. 1,24,000, was sanctioned. The said loan was payable by the complainant in 48 installments @ Rs. 3,563 per month, along with finance charge. The complainant deposited the amount, as mentioned in para No. 5 of the complaint and he deposited total amount of Rs. 2,25,908. The O.P. No. 3 gave receipt for the amount of Rs. 81,350. On 3.10.2010, the O.P. No. 2 without giving any intimation, forcibly repossessed the vehicle in question. The late Rajendra Kumar Mishra, husband of the present respondent, wanted information regarding repossession of the vehicle from OPs, then he was directed to contact their office. The late Rajendra Kumar Mishra, deposited last installment of Rs. 5,000 on 20.10.2010, but the vehicle in question was not released by the OPs. On being asked by the OPs, the late Rajendra Kumar Mishra, delivered surrender letter dated 11.2.2011 to the OPs. The OPs did not return the vehicle to the complainant and due to this, the complainant suffered financial loss and he also suffered mental agony and ultimately the complainant filed consumer complaint before the District Forum.
(2.)THE OPs filed their written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that the matter involves legal questions and it will be decided only after taking evidence, therefore, the matter is of civil nature, hence, the District Forum is not competent to decide the case summarily. The relation between the OPs and the complainant is of "financer" and "borrower". The late Rajendra Kumar Mishra, himself surrendered the vehicle on 28.2.2011, because he was incapable and unable to deposit the installments in time, hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The Managers of the OPs/Company are not necessary party in the complaint. The agreement was executed between OPs and the complainant, therefore, the complaint was not maintainable against the Managers OPs/Company. OPs further averred that the complainant is not "consumer" of the OPs, hence the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the matter. According to Clause 29 of Agreement the Arbitrator shall only have jurisdiction to decide the matter, therefore, the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable before the District Forum. The OPs/Company has not committed any deficiency in service.
Learned District Forum, on the basis of material available before it, came to the conclusion that the OPs/Company was guilty of committing deficiency in service as the vehicle was repossessed by the OPs. Learned District Forum, further averred that OPs seized the vehicle in question in the month of October, 2010. Had the vehicle was not seized by the OPs, then the vehicle was redeemed from mortgage and the District Forum has allowed the complaint and awarded the compensation to the complainant, as mentioned hereinabove in paragraph No. 1 of this judgment.

(3.)MR . B. Gopa Kumar, learned Counsel for the OPs argued that the complainant had not deposited the instalments regularly and defaulted in making installments, therefore, the OPs repossessed the vehicle in question. He further argued that the complainant himself surrendered the vehicle before the OPs and he shown his inability to deposit the installments, therefore, the vehicle was repossessed by the OPs. The complainant failed to deposit the installments regularly and loan agreement was executed between the OPs/company and the complainant. The OPs/company is owner of the vehicle in question and the complainant is simply a bailee of the vehicle, therefore, the OPs/company is entitled to repossess the vehicle and OPs did not commit any deficiency in service. The order passed by the District Forum, is erroneous and is not sustainable in eye of law. He placed reliance on judgment of Hon'ble National Commission in Revision Petition No. 1657 of 2009, A. Ganesan v. Sundar, Manager, Indusind Bank Ltd. & Another,, I (2010) CPJ 168 (NC); Ashok Leyland Finance Limited and Others v. Jagnarayana,, 2005 L.T. (Consumer) 9, judgment of this Commission in the case of Surendra Kumar Agrawal v. Telco Finance Ltd. & Anr.,, IV (2006) CPJ 68.