Under a hire purchase agreement, the hirer is not the owner of the vehicle and the insurance claim payment is rightfully made to the financier. Court cannot interfere in contractual obligations between private parties in a writ jurisdiction.

1. Heard the parties.

2. The present writ application had been filed by a hirer of truck whose insurance claim for loss of hired truck was not being settled by the United India Insurance Company Limited. Pursuant to notice issued by this Court, the Insurance Company has settled the claim for a total loss. The grievance of the petitioner is that the claim payment has been made not to the petitioner but to the Finance Company who had given the vehicle to the petitioner under an agreement of hire purchase. His second grievance is that for the delayed settlement of insurance claim, the Insurance Company must compensate. His third claim is that the Finance Company is charging higher rate of interest for fixing the monthly hire charges. His fourth grievance is that maximum number of instalments, the petitioner has already paid and, as such, he was entitled to the insurance claim settlement amount.

3. I have considered the submissions and I find no merit in either one of them. So far as the first submission with regard to payment being made to the financier rather than petitioner is concerned, it is a settled principle of law that under a hire purchase agreement, the hirer is only a bailee of the goods. He is not the owner. It is the financier who is the true owner. The hirer takes the good on hire purchase promised to be paid under the agreement. Till he liquidates the entire hire charges for the entire period of hire, the ownership vests in the financier. In that view of the matter, the petitioner is not the owner of the vehicle in the strict legal sense. He is owner only in the limited sense as used in the Motor Vehicles Act for the purposes of the said Act alone and not beyond that. Moreover, under an insurance policy taken out by the financier in respect of the vehicle hired out, the beneficiary under the insurance policy is the financier though the premium is paid by the hirer. In that view of the matter, no wrong has been committed by Insurance Company making payment to the financier.

4. The second grievance of the petitioner is with regard to the compensation of delayed settlement of insurance claim. The writ application itself contains contemporaneous documents which show that material particulars were not furnished by the petitioner in time. Petitioner now disputes it. No sooner the particulars were supplied by the petitioner after filing the present writ application, the Insurance Company settled the claim almost within one week. In this disputed view of facts, this Court cannot award any interest.

5. The third issue raised is with regard to difference or high rate of interest charged by the financier. I regret that in a writ jurisdiction, this Court cannot interfere in contractual obligations as between two private parties not being State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It is a private commercial contract and the remedies have to be found by the petitioner as available in law but surely a writ petition does not lie for such a grievance.

6. The last point raised by the petitioner is that he has paid maximum instalments and, as such, the insurance amount for total loss of the vehicle should be given to him. I regret I cannot accept this submission for the simple reason that what the petitioner gave instalment is not price of the goods. They are only monthly hire charges. He could have stopped payment of monthly charges one month short of the last monthly hire charges and returned the vehicle. Till he has punctually obeyed and paid all monthly hire charges, as stipulated in the agreement, he has no right over the vehicle except as a bailee. There is a difference of one payment in instalment and payment by way of hire charges. If the petitioner had paid the entire hire charges and the final consideration for transfer, the vehicle would have been his and he would have been entitled to the insurance claim as well. That not having been done, the vehicle remains to be the property of the fin