ORDER :

B.S. Chauhan and J.S. Khehar, JJ. - This petition has been preferred against the judgment and order 19.10.2011 Suryapal Singh v. Siddha Vinayak Motors, (2011) 4 CPJ 405 (NC) 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.

2. 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. This Court vide its judgment in Sardar Trilok Singh & Ors. v. Satya Deo Tripathi, 1979 4 SCC 396 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 987 : 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 alias Babu & Anr. v. Kora Bibbikutty (1996) 7 SCC 212 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 281, Jagdish Chandra Nijhawan v. S.K. Saraf (1999) 1 SCC 119 : 19