PER JUSTUCE J.M. MALIK 1. Counsel for the petitioner heard. The Complainant, Upendra Kumar Pandey purchased a truck for Rs. 6,37,000/- by taking a loan from M/s Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. On 1st March 1998. He made re-payment in the sum of Rs. 5,42,000/-.He was unable to pay the rest of the amount in the sum of Rs. 95,000/- with interest. It is alleged that Opposite Parties demanded Rs. 1,12,200/- towards the outstanding amount vide letter dated 07.05.1999. The complainant sent a request on 18.05.1999 to the OPs to extend the time for payment of actual amount by instalments. 2. Out of blue, on 17.06.1999, the OPs were taken away from the possession of the complainant forcibly with connected papers. A complaint was lodged with the police station. The matter went upto the Hon’ble High Court. The Hon’ble High Court was pleased to direct that the name of the complainant instead of the third party/purchaser be recorded by the registering authority. 3. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum for possession of the vehicle. The District Forum directed the OPs to pay jointly and severally a compensation of Rs. 5,42,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% from 1.7.1999 till the date of realization and to pay a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- as compensation plus litigation costs in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant within 45 days from the date of communication of the order, failing which, an interest @ 9% p.a. would accrue over the entire amount till realization. 4. The Opposite parties filed the First Appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission partly allowed the appeal and directed the appellants to pay compensation in the sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- and litigation costs of Rs. 20,000/- to the respondent/complainant within 45 days from the date of passing this order , failing which, an interest @ 9% p.a. would accrue on the aforesaid amount from the date of default till realization. 5. Now this Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner/complainant. Counsel for the complainant supports the order passed by the District Forum. He submits that the order of the District Forum should be restored. He also invited our attention towards the observation made by the State Commission, which runs as follows:- “From the evidence on record, we are of the view that the vehicle was repossessed forcibly for which the complainant was entitled to get compensation and cost. Relying on the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Citicorp Maruti Finance Ltd. Vs. S. Vijayalaxmi, we modify the impugned judgment and order as hereunder.” 6. Counsel for the petitioner has also cited an authority, which clearly goes to show that the vehicle should not be repossessed forcefully. He has cited an authority reported in Manager ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Prakash Kaur [2007] 2 SC 422. He has also cited Judgments reported by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the case of Citicorp Maruti Fianance Ltd. versus S. Vijayalaxmi [2007] 3 CPR(NC) 191, M/s Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd. Vs. Nathu [2011] 2 CPR (NC) 263, M/s Magma Fincorp Limited Versus Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta in Revision Petition No. 2158 of 2009 decided on 19.07.2010 and latest Supreme Court judgment in the case of Citicorp Maruti Finance Ltd. Vs. S. Vijayalaxmi decided by the Apex Court on 14.11.2011. 7. In all these cases, no notice of demand was ever sent. Consequently, these authorities are not applicable to this case. In the instant case, notice for demand was sent. Again the Apex Court in other case reported in Suryapal Singh Versus Siddha Vinayak Motors & Anr. III (2012) CPJ 4, was pleased to hold:- “Under the Hire Purchase Agreement, it is the financier who is the owner of the vehicle and 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 ot be a legal right of the financier. 2. This Court vide its judgment in Trilok Singh & Ors. V. 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. V. Kora Bibbikutty & Anr., 1996 (7) SCC 212; Jagdish Chandra Nijhawan V. S.K. Saraf, IX (1998) SLT 477=IV (1998) CCR 118 (SC)=1999 (1)SCC 119; Charanjit Singh Chadha & Ors. V. 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. v. The State of Kerala & Anr., AIR 1966 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) SLT195=III(2005) CCR 8 (SC) CCE 2005 (4) SCC 146.” 8. It is also surprising to note that the vehicle was driven by the petitioner for two years. He must have earned enough money. The price of the vehicle comes to half within a few days. This fact was not considered by the District Forum. The State Commission has already taken a lenient view in favour of the complainant/petitioner. The petitioner has waddled out of his commitments. A defaulter is not to be awarded for all these defaults. Consequently, we hereby dismiss the Revision Petition. | 
