BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: ATHYDERABAD.

F.A.No.305/2011 against C.C.No.117/2009 District Forum, Nizamabad.

Between

The Branch Manager

M/s Shriram Investments Limited,

Presently known as Shriram Transport

Finance Co. Ltd., rep. by Sri Y.Rama

Krishnudu S/o.Sri Y.Narayana,

Aged 29 years, Occ:Branch Manager

R/o.D.No.5-6-573/1B, Pragathinagar

Nizamabad.                                                                                              

And

Sri Papi Reddy S/o.Krishna Reddy

Aged 40 years, Occ: Owner of

Harvestor, bearing No.PB04-G-6854,

R/o.Siddapur (V), Kotagir (M)

Nizamabad.                                                                                                                                       

Counsel for the Appellant            

Counsel for the Respondent         

QUORUM: 

AND

SRI S.BHUJANGA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER. 

TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY,

TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN

Order (Per Smt.M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Incharge President)

***

Aggrieved by the order in CC 117/2009 on the file of District Forum, Nizamabad, the opposite party preferred this appeal.

The complainant submits that he was surprised and approached RTA and obtained copy of transfer of RC and it was clearly mentioned about financing the loan through HP agreement on 20-11-2008.  without notice seized the vehicle and in fact the accountant of the opposite party after checking the ledger informed the complainant that the account was cleared and the opposite party  The complainant submitted that he cleared the dues but the opposite party is refusing to issue any clearance certificate and is demanding that he   

                       thnd Opposite party submitted that the complainant failed to repay the EMI amounts regularly and became a chronic defaulter and the loan is based on hypothecation agreement which gives scope to recover delay payment charges on EMI and thus an amount of Rs.5,66,081/- is total loan amount inclusive of OD charges of Rs.1,11,085/- and Rs.4,19,999/- was paid.    

It is the case of the appellant/opposite party that the complainant also availed a loan of Rs.85,000/- which had to be repaid by him in 9 EMI’s along with interest and the complainant paid an amount of Rs.4,19,999/- out of the contract value of Rs.4,56,090/- obtained as finance and the complainant failed to pay the balance amounts and therefore they repossessed the asset on 10-5-2008 by issuing prior notices evidenced under Exs.A3, A4 and A5.   

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.

The Court vide its judgmenet in Trilok Singh and 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. Bihar

          We also observe from the record that the complainant did not issue any notice to the opposite party with respect to his readiness to pay the amounts nor did he choose to participate in the auction and also there is no evidence filed that the spare parts and tools worth Rs.75,000/- were present in the vehicle when it was seized.     

                                                                            JM