Surya Pal Singh vs Siddha Vinayak Motors and Another

Dr. B.S. Chauhan and Jagdish Singh Khehar, JJ.—This petition has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 19.10.2011 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Prima facie it appears that the three courts below erred in not considering the facts of the case in correct perspective. 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 installment has already been upheld to be a legal right of the financier. this Court vide its judgment in Sardar Trilok Singh and Others Vs. Satya Deo Tripathi, 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 alias Babu v. Kora Bibbikutty, (1996) 7 SCC 212; Jagdish Chandra Nijhawan Vs. S.K. Saraf, and Charanjit Singh Chadha and Others Vs. Sudhir Mehra, following the earlier judgment of this Court in Sundaram Finance Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala and Another, ; Lalmuni Devi Vs. State of Bihar and Others, and Balwinder Singh v. Asstt. Commissioner, C.C.E., 2005 (4) SCC 146.

In view of the above, prima facie we are of the view that the courts below has committed an error in granting compensation to the present Petitioner and which appears to be non-sustainable in law.

In view of the above, issue notice to the Petitioner as well as to the Respondents why the judgments and order impugned be not set aside. The Petitioner is restrained to make any recovery from the Respondent of the amount which has been awarded to him by the courts below.