ORAL JUDGMENT

PER JUSTICE MR. V.R. KINGAONKAR

          We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

2.      This revision petition arises out of concurrent findings of both the Foras below. 

3.      The Respondent is the original complainant.  Admittedly, he availed loan of Rs.6,60,000/- for purchase of a motor vehicle.  That vehicle was hypotheticated with the revision petitioner.  He executed the relevant documents at the time of obtaining that loan.  It appears that the vehicle was purchased by the complainant on 31-01-2008.  The first loan transaction was closed in the middle before the complete recovery was made.

4.      The revision petitioner bank granted another loan to the Respondent.  The petitioner bank found that the Respondent (complainant) was in arrears of certain instalments.  Hence notice to repossess the vehicle was given to the complainant.  The complainant had sought time to repay the amount.  The complainant appears to have urged for the time.  The petitioner, however, repossessed the vehicle.  The Respondent filed complaint for compensation on account of such illegal repossessing of the vehicle bearing Registration No. KA – 01 MD – 3381.  The complaint was partly allowed in as much as the Fora below came to the conclusion that there was no subsequent renewal of the hypothetication in respect of the car vehicle.  The Foras below held that the earlier hypothetication agreement could not be assumed to have been continued with extended liability for the repayment of the second loan, which was a separate transaction.  The petitioner failed to produce any separate hypothetication agreement in respect of the second loan, which the petitioner alleges to have re-financed for the same vehicle.

5.      We are of the opinion that once the earlier loan transaction was closed by mutual understanding of the parties, the first hypothetication agreement also came to an end as it was co-terminus transaction.  Obviously, unless there was further hypothetication agreement between the parties or specific understanding in the second agreement about continuation of the earlier hypothetication, on the same terms as contemplated under the earlier agreement, the petitioner had no right to repossess the vehicle.  Considering these aspects, we do not find any substantial error committed by both the Fora below.  The relevant orders are passed on findings of facts and we are not inclined to re-appreciate the evidence, which was placed on record before the District Consumer Forum and the State Commission. We, however, make it clear that the petitioner will be at liberty to take appropriate steps and file any proceedings for the recovery before the appropriate fora, as is permissible under the law.  The petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to cost.