News Citation : 2026 LN (CGSCDRC) 2
January 08, 2026 : In a significant ruling, the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur, has allowed an appeal filed by Authum Investment & Infrastructure and set aside an earlier order of the District Consumer Commission that had granted relief to the legal heirs of a deceased borrower in a vehicle finance dispute. The order was pronounced on January 8, 2026, in Appeal No. SC/22/FA/113/2025, titled Authum Investment & Infrastructure vs. Smt. Premin Bai & Others.
The dispute traces back to 2013, when Munni Lal purchased a goods vehicle through financial assistance provided by the appellant financier. The vehicle was insured for the period between February 5, 2013 and February 4, 2014. According to the complainants, the vehicle was damaged in May 2013 after being hit by an unidentified vehicle while parked outside their residence. It was subsequently taken to the dealer’s workshop for repairs.
The complainants alleged that despite payment demands and partial payment of ₹25,000, the vehicle was not properly repaired and was eventually repossessed by the financier without prior notice. They approached the District Consumer Commission, Raipur, alleging deficiency in service by the financier, dealer and insurance company. The District Commission partly allowed their complaint on January 9, 2025.
Challenging that decision, the financier filed an appeal before the State Commission under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
After examining the record, including loan documents, notices and account statements, the State Commission found that the vehicle had been financed under a valid loan agreement and that the borrower had defaulted on repayment of instalments. The financier had issued demand and pre-sale notices before taking possession of the vehicle. The Commission held that repossession in accordance with contractual terms, following repeated defaults, did not amount to deficiency in service.
The State Commission also noted that the complainants failed to produce credible documentary proof to establish regular repayment of instalments. Further, there was no reliable evidence demonstrating that the vehicle had been duly registered at the time it was being operated, raising concerns about compliance with statutory requirements.
In view of these findings, the Commission concluded that the District Commission had erred in granting relief without properly appreciating the evidence. It set aside the earlier order and dismissed the consumer complaint. Each party was directed to bear its own costs.
The ruling reinforces the principle that lawful repossession of a financed vehicle after borrower default, when backed by proper notice and documentation, does not constitute deficiency of service under consumer law.
Case Reference : Appeal No. SC/22/FA/113/2025 – Authum Investment & Infrastructure vs. Smt. Premin Bai & Anr.
