M. B. Shah, J. —For understanding the reasoning properly, at the outset, we would state as under:

Hire-purchase Agreement

A—1. When a vehicle is purchased by a person (consumer) by borrowing money from the money lender/financier/banker, the consumer is the owner of the vehicle and not the money lender/financier/banker, unless the ownership is transferred.

2. In a democratic country having well established independent judiciary and having various laws it is impermissible for the money lender/financier/banker to take possession of the vehicle for which loan is advanced, by use of force.

3. Legal or judicial process may be slow but it is no excuse for employing musclemen to repossess the vehicle for which loan is given. Such type of ‘instant justice’ cannot be permitted in a civilized society where there is effective rule of law. Otherwise, it would result in anarchy, that too, when the borrower retorts and uses the force.

B.—1. A hire-purchase agreement is a normal one under which owner hires goods to another party called the hirer and further agrees that the hirer shall have an option to purchase the chattel when he has paid a certain sum, or when the hire-rental payments hav