IMPORTANT POINTUnder hire-purchase agreement the owner is entitled to repossess vehicle in case of default in payment of due installments being committed by hirer.

Smt. Veena Misra, Member - This appeal has been filed against the order dated 24.8.2002 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raiper(hereinafter referred to as 'District Forum' for short) in complaint case No. 51/2002 whereby the complaint was dismissed.

2. The facts not presently in dispute are that the respondent no.3 had purchased Minibus No. MP-23 J-0542 under hire purchase agreement with M/s. Ashok Leyland Finance Co. and as all the due installments were not paid the vehicle was repossessed by the aforesaid finance company.

3. Brief facts of the case as narrated in the complaint are that the complainant had purchased the aforesaid vehicle from the respondent no.3 for self employment by means of the sale letter but the respondent No.3 had deliberately suppressed material information and had got the sale letter dated 10.4.2002 executed. It was further contended that respondent Nos. land 2 had also given incomplete information regarding the remaining installments in connection with the vehicle in question and had also accepted due installments from the complainant, and as such are liable for deficiency in service. It was further contended that opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 had illegally received Rs. 4,50,000/- from the complainant in connection with the aforesaid vehicle No. MP-23 J-0542. The complainant had prayed for grant of the aforesaid sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- together with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of deposit and costs.

4. Respondent/ opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 had filed joint reply before the District Forum and had also raised preliminary objections to the maintainability of the complaint and had emphatically denied the allegations of the complainant regarding taking money from him. Besides other things it was also contended that they had nothing to do with the claim of the complainant and had further contended that in case the opposite party No.3 had entered into any agreement with the complainant such an agreement was in violation of the terms of the Hire Purchase Agreement. It was also contended that the finance company was the owner of the vehicle under the law of hire purchase had an exclusive right to repossess the vehicle in case of default. The respondent/ opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 also contended that the RTO had taken possession of the vehicle in question as tax was not paid by the hirer and the finance company had made payment of the tax and repossessed the vehicle in question.

5. Respondent/opposite party No. 3 had filed separate reply and had admitted that he had sold the vehicle No. MP-23 J-0542 to the complainant for a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- but had specifically denied the allegation made in the complaint that he had suppressed any facts regarding the vehicle in question or payment of remaining installments to the finance company. Further that the complainant had, together with his counsel and relatives visited the office of the finance company and had made necessary inquiries. It was also contended in the reply that the complainant had purchased the said vehicle after fully satisfying himself regarding all necessary details including the number of remaining installments and total amount due. The opposite party No.3 had also denied the allegations of deficiency in service.

6. The learned District Forum came to the reasoned conclusion that the complainant was neither the consumer of any of the opposite parties nor the opposite parties have committed any deficiency in service and under the circumstances, the complainant is not entitled to the relief of grant of a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/-, accordingly the complaint was dismissed.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant assailed the impugned order and urged that the respondent/opposite party No. 3 had deceptively sold the vehicle in question without telling about the number of installments due for payment to the finance company and when the complainant went to the office of the finance company the concerned officers also did not te