Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.S. Chauhan, J.S. Khehar, JJ.
Suryapal Singh - Petitioner
Versus
Siddha Vinayak Motors and another - Respondent
SLP (C) No. 5302 of 2012. From the Judgment and Order dated 19-10-2011 in Rp No. 2771 of 2011 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New delhi.
Decided On : 21-02-2012
Hire Purchase Agreement - Ownership of Vehicle - The court held that under the Hire Purchase Agreement, the financier is the real owner of the vehicle, and therefore, has the legal right to repossess the vehicle in case of non-payment of installments.
Fact of the Case:
The courts below erred in not considering the facts of the case in the correct perspective. The petitioner was granted compensation, which the court found to be non-sustainable in law.
Finding of the Court:
The courts below committed an error in granting compensation to the petitioner. The petitioner is restrained from making any recovery from the respondent of the awarded amount.
Issues: Ownership rights under the Hire Purchase Agreement, granting of compensation, and the legality of the judgments and order impugned.
Ratio Decidendi: The financier is the real owner of the vehicle under the Hire Purchase Agreement and has the legal right to repossess the vehicle. The compensation granted to the petitioner was found to be non-sustainable in law.
Final Decision: The court issued notice to the petitioner and respondents to show cause why the judgments and order impugned should not be set aside. The petitioner was restrained from making any recovery from the respondent of the awarded amount.
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 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 20, Charanjit Singh Chadha & Ors. v. Sudhir Mehra, (2001) 7 SCC 417 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1557 following the earlier judgment of this Court in Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. the State of Kerala, AIR 1966 SC 1178, Smt. Lalmuni Devi v. State of Bihar, (2001) 2 SCC 17 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 275 and Balwinder Singh v. Asstt. Commissioner, CCE (2005) 4 SCC 146 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1092.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. The petitioner is restrained to make any recovery from the respondent of the amount which has been awarded to him by the courts below.
Court Masters.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
