JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.      This judgment will decide above said two revision petitions, which were filed against the same judgment.

2.      Shri Rajiv Bhatia, the complainant, purchased a truck, which was financed by IndusInd Bank Limited, opposite party No. 1 and Alfine Services & Solutions, opposite party No. 2.  The truck was purchased from M/s Ashok Leyland, therefore, it was impleaded as opposite party No. 3.  The said transaction took place in January, 2006.  The complainant paid the monthly instalments regularly till June, 2007.  Thereafter, the opposite parties started making demand for Rs.33,830/- on account of money overdue.  The complainant issued a cheque for the instalment but the cheque was dishonored as the complainant was not having enough funds in the Bank. 

3.      It is alleged that Goondas were sent and on 31.8.2007, the truck was seized by Goondas.  The truck was sold.  The complainant filed a complaint claiming a sum of Rs.7 lakh on account of margin money and instalments already paid, and also to pay back wages in the sum of Rs.60,000/- per month.

4.      The District Forum allowed the complaint in part.  Being aggrieved, the opposite parties preferred an appeal before the State Commission.  The State Commission allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint.

5.      We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 

6.      Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant vehemently argued that he had paid the entire amount.  He was not served with any notice before forcibly taking the possession of the vehicle in dispute. 

7.      The record reveals that opposite party started demanding the sum of Rs.33,830/- on account of overdue vide letter dated 1.9.2006.  An amount of Rs.1,67,700/- was due from the complainant upto 1.9.2006 but only a sum of Rs.1,39,750/- had been paid.  Thus, a sum of Rs.27,950/- being the dues in the above said amount and a sum of Rs.5880/- on account of additional finance charges were due from the complainant as on 1.9.2006.  The petitioner issued a cheque which was dishonored by Banker for want of funds in his account.  It stands proved that the complainant himself had handed over the truck to the respondents because there is no evidence that goondas were engaged. 
Even the affidavit sworn by the complainant to this context did not see the light of the day.  Thus a sum of Rs.33,830/- was due from the complainant as on 1.9.2006.  The State Commission was pleased to hold:

“9. View taken by the learned District Forum that there was no evidence adduced by the opposite parties, in support of their plea that a sum of Rs.27,950/- was due

upto 01.09.2006, on account of instalments + Rs.5880/- on account of additional finance charges, is not correct at least so far as the amount of Rs.27,950/- is concerned.  Complainant himself placed on record certain documents along with list of documents and those documents included detail of instalments payable.  Same is available at pages 29 & 30.  As per this detail, complainant paid the instalments for January, March, April, May, June, July & August, 2006.  However, he did not pay the instalment due in February, 2006.  Thus, the plea of the opposite parties that a sum of Rs.27,950/- was due on account of one instalment upto 01.09.2006, is borne out from the aforesaid document produced & relied upon by the complainant himself.

10. Complainant also placed on record copy of his bank account with HDFC bank, but the statement reflects the transactions from April, 2006 onwards.  It appears that the complainant has deliberately withheld the record of the transactions prior to April, 2006, because as indicated above, the detail of instalments shows that instalment for February, 2006, had not been paid.  As a result of the above stated position, complainant’s plea that nothing was due from him to the opposite parties, when a demand for Rs.33,830/- was raised by the opposite parties in July, 2007, and hence the action of the opposite parties in taking the possession of the vehicle was unwarranted, is unacceptable.”

8.      This is clear that the petitioner has waddled out of the commitments made by him to the opposite parties.  Learned counsel for the petitioner could not show to the Commission that they have paid the sum in the month of February, 2006 and July, 2007.  The said amount receipt did not see the light of the day.  Furthermore, in a recent authority reported in Surya Pal Singh vs. Siddha Vinayak Motors & Anr. III (2012) CPJ 4 (SC), the Supreme Court was pleased to hold “

“Under the Hire Purchase Agreement, it is the financier who is the owner of the vehicle and the person who takes the loan retain the vehicle only as a bailee/trustee, therefore, taking possession of the vehicle on the ground of non-payment of instalment has always been upheld to be a legal right of the financier.

This Court vide its judgment in Trilok Singh & Ors. Vs. Satya Deo Tripathi, AIR 1979 SC 850, has categorically held that under the Hire Purchase Agreement, the financier is the real owner of the vehicle, therefore, there cannot be any allegation against him for having the possession of the vehicle.  This view was again reiterated in K.A. Mathai @ Babu & Anr. Vs. Kora Bibbikutty & Anr. 1996 (7) SCC 212; Jagdish Chandra Nijhawan vs. S. K. Saraf, IX (1998) SLT 477=IV (1998) CCR 118 (SC)=1999(1) SCC 119; Charanjit Singh Chadha & Ors. Vs. Sudhir Mehra, VI (2001) SLT 883=III (2001) CCR 232 (SC)=2001(7)SCC 417, following the earlier judgment of this Court in Sundaram Finance Ltd. vs. The State of Kerala & Anr. AIR 1996 SC 1178; Smt. Lalmuni Devi v. State of Bihar & Ors. I (2001) SLT 26=I(2001) CCR 9 (SC)=2001(2) SCC 17 and Balwinder Singh v. Asstt.  Commissioner,

V (2005) SLT 195=III(2005) CCR 8 (SC)=CCE 2005(4) SCC 146.”

9.      Consequently, the revision petitions have no merit, therefore, the same are hereby dismissed.   There shall be no order as to costs.