The main legal point established is that under a hire purchase agreement, the owner has the right to seize the vehicle for non-payment of hire charges as per the provisions of the Hire Purchase Act, 1972.

JUDGMENT

1. Plaintiff is O.S.No.1017/2000 on the file of 16th Additional City Civil Judge Court, Bengaluru has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed in the said suit dtd. 12/1/2006.

2. It was the case of the appellant-plaintiff before the Trial Court that he borrowed a sum of Rs.60, 000.00 from Respondent No.1 for purchase of lorry bearing Reg.No.CAM-2204. He agreed to repay the said amount in 12 months equal instalments with interest. The amount of each instalment was Rs.7, 400.00. The appellant paid the entire amount of instalments and last instalment was dtd. 24/1/2000 and he paid in all Rs.88, 800.00.

3. It was the further case of the appellant that on 4/2/2000 at about 11.30 a.m., near Kamakshipalya at Sunkadakatte, Bengaluru, the first respondent without prior notice or intimation forcefully has taken away the said vehicle on the ground that as per the Hire Purchase Agreement, entire amounts were not paid Appellant has not obtained loan on hire purchase agreement. Therefore, acts as Respondent No.1 was illegal.

4. It was further contended and appellant before Trial Court that the condition of the said lorry was good and its market value as on the date of seizure was more than Rs.1.00 Lakh. With these reasons, appellant prayed to direct the respondent to re-deliver lorry bearing Reg.No.CAM-2204 in the alternative, payment of Rs.1.00 Lakh being the price of the said lorry with the interest at the rate of 21% per annum to the plaintiff.

5. Respondent No.1 contended before the Trial Court that appellant obtained financial assistance for purchase of the lorry bearing Reg.No.CAM-2204 on hire purchase basis. He executed necessary documents. The total hire charges was fixed at Rs.2, 22, 000.00 payable in thirty monthly equal instalments of Rs.7, 400.00. Plaintiff was chronic defaulter. He has not repaid the dues inspite of oral request and written notices. Hence, defendant No.1 being the absolute owner of the vehicle, took possession of the said vehicle. With these reasons, defendant No.1 prayed to dismiss the suit.

6. The Trial Court had framed the following issues:

"1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the 1st defendant or anybody claiming under the defendants in any manner whatsoever are bound to deliver back the suit lorry to the plaintiff as claimed by him?

2. Whether the plaintiff proves that in the alternative the 1st defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.1, 00, 000.00 as the price of the suit lorry together with interest at 21% per annum, from the date of taking possession till the date of the payment?

3. Whether the plaintiff further proves that the 2nd defendant cannot transfer the vehicle in favour of any others or in the amendment of 1st defendant as alleged by him?

4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the suit relief as sought against the defendant?

5. What decree or order?"

7. The appellant-plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and got marked Exs.P1 to 21 and closed his evidence. The defendant No.1 examined himself as DW-1 and got marked Exs.D1 to 13 and closed his evidence.

8. The learned Trial Judge heard the arguments.

9. Appreciating the pleadings and evidence, the learned Trial Judge answered Issues No.1 to 4 in the negative and dismissed the suit.

10. The following points emerges for my determination:

i) Whether the learned Trial Judge erred in holding that the transaction between the Appellant and Respondent No.1 was hire purchase agreement?

ii) Whether Respondent No.1 has any right to seize the vehicle without due process of law?

iii) Whether the learned Trial Judge erred in dismissing the suit and does it calls for any interference by this Court?

11. The learned Advocate for the appellant contends that Ex.D1 was not proved by Respondent No.1. The evidence of DW-1 was not properly appreciated by the Trial Court. The appellant has paid all the twelve instalments by the end of 24/1/2000. It was not considered by the Trial Court. Respondent No.1 has not accounted for the seizure of the veh