( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and a decree dated 5. 12. 2002 passed by the learned Additional District Judge in Suit No. 280 of 2001. The appellant has filed this appeal alongwith the pleadings and the relevant documents.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts which are necessary to dispose of this appeal are as under. Respondent No. 1 Vasudeva Publicity Service had purchased a Contessa Classic car on hire purchase basis from the appellant for an amount of Rs. 2,80,000. the amount was to be paid in 12 equal monthly instalments of Rs. 26,370 each. The case of the respondents (plaintiffs before the trial court) was that upon payment of the entire amount under the said agreement the respondents had become entitled to the issuance of no dues clearance certificate and for removal of the hypothecation endorsement from the registration book of the car which the appellant failed to do so. It may be pertinent to mention that the appellant had also issued a statement of account showing the balance amount payable by the respondents to the appellant as nil.

( 3 ) IT may be pertinent to mention that the respondents had issued post dated cheques to the appellant. All the cheques were honoured but the appellant did not encash cheques for the months November and December,1995. The appellant did not raise any demand in respect of the instalment amounts for the months of November and December,1995.

( 4 ) IT is alleged in the plaint that on 23. 4. 1999 the appellant repossessed the car forcibly. In the written statement it is mentioned that the appellant has not taken forcible repossession from the respondents but the respondents had voluntarily surrendered the car to the Recovery Officer of the appellant company. It is also mentioned in the written statement that the respondent and Vasudeva Advertising Private Ltd are sister concerns and the amount due from Vasudeva Advertising Private Ltd is the liability of the respondent and the respondent voluntarily gave the car to the Recovery Officer. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties the trial court framed the following Issues:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for mandatory and permanent injunction as claimed against the defendant co. ? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for damages by way of compensation from the defendant, if so, for what period and at what rate? OPP

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest if so, at what rate ? OPP

4. Relief.

1 After examining the evidence on record, the Court came to the conclusion that nothing was due and payable by the respondents to the appellant and despite that no dues certificate was not given to the respondents. The trial court arrived at a specific finding that the contention of the appellant that the respondent had voluntarily surrendered the car to the appellant s representative does not inspire any confidence for the reason that the appellant s witnesses themselves admitted the case of the respondents. The trial court observed that non issuance of no objection certificate despite the discharge of liability of the plaintiff amounts to a deficiency in service or breach of contract giving rise to the claim for damages.

2 The trial court placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Dr. Amitabh Varma vs. The Commissioner of Police and Others 2003 1 Apex Decisions (Delhi) 329 wherein this Court gave the following guidelines:-

(1) The finance companies must inform the hirers regarding the details of instalments due and payable by a written communication.

(2) Even before repossession another written notice must be sent to the hirers and only thereafter the vehicles be repossessed.

(3) Finance companies are restrained from stopping the running vehicles on the roads and forcibly pulling out the driver and take possession of the vehicle against all provisions of law.

1 Admittedly in pursuance of the directions of this Court the respondent was not given any notice or written co