HYDERABAD.

F.A.No.316/2012 against C.C.No.122/2008 District Forum, Karimnagar.

Between

Mahindra & Mahindra Financial

Services Ltd., rep. by its Branch

Manager, B-6, Business Chambers

Building, Opp:Mahindra 

Kothirampur, Karimnagar.                                                                                           

And

Battu Laxman S/o.Venkanna aged 48 years,

Occ:Business, R/o.H.No.10-65/4, Bommakal

Village, Karimnagar Mandal and District.                                                                                              

Counsel for the Appellant            

Counsel for the Respondent 

QUORUM: 

AND

SRI S.BHUJANGA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER. 

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF January,

TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN

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

***

The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant purchased a car TATA INDICAB (S-II) AC bearing registration No.AP-15-W-6887 in July, 2004 under hypothecation through opposite party by borrowing an amount of Rs.2,36,000/-.           

Opposite party filed counter resisting the complaint.       

Based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A13 and B1 to B25 and the pleadings put forward, the District Forum allowed the complaint in part directing the opposite party to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.1,53,802/- (1,92,000 -38,198) together with costs of Rs.1,000/-.

Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party preferred this appeal.

We observe from the record that the complainant purchased a TATA Indi cab in July, 2004 which was hypothecated to the opposite party for an amount of Rs.2,36,000/- payable in 36 equal monthly instalments at Rs.7,982/-(Ex.B1).     Ex.B6 is the final notice dated 16-10-2006 that the opposite party would be selling the vehicle if the dues are not settled.         

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

       , held as follows: 

“It is not disputed before is that the petitioner had raised a loan of Rs.6,15,000/- to purchase the truck.    IndiaIndia) Ltd.,   

Sd/-Incharge President.

JM                                                                                                     Dt.29-1-2013.