The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for proper notice before repossession and sale of a vehicle under a hire purchase agreement, as well as the liability of finance companies in such cases.

ORDER

J.M. Malik, (P.M) - This order shall decide the above said two revision petitions which are filed by both the OPs, separately, against the same order of the State Commission, dated 13.11.2009. The case of Sh. Bapu Appa Suryawanshi, the complainant, is as follows. The complainant had availed loan of Rs. 4,00,000/- from Citicorp Finance (I) Ltd., on 02.02.2003 for purchase of a Tata Tempo. He was to repay the same in 45 equal instalments @ Rs. 12,669/- p.m. The complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 1,06,700/- with the Citicorp Finance (I) Ltd, OP1 and Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd., OP2. He had agreed to pay the said amount up to 23.12.2006, in 45 equal monthly instalments. However, on 23.06.2004, the OPs issued notice dated 23.06.2004 demanding the amount of Rs. 85,000/- within eight days from the receipt of the notice. The said notice was replied and the OPs were aware of the fact that a sum of Rs. 2,66,000/- had already been paid. It is surprising to note that Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd., OP2, had forcibly obtained the possession of the Tempo on 21.06.2004, i.e., prior to sending of the notice. After re-possession of the vehicle, the same was sold without giving further notice to the complainant.

2. The OPs have contested this case. It is explained that the complainant was holding the vehicle as bailee under Hire Purchase Agreement. He has no proprietary right or interest as purchaser of the vehicle. He is the hirer of the vehicle in question. There was no deficiency on the part of the OPs in repossessing the vehicle due to non-payment of the installments by the complainant. Again, the complainant purchased this vehicle for commercial purposes. Jurisdiction of this Commission has also been called into question. It is contended that the petitioner has included initial hire marginal amount as payment is to be made in installments. Initial hire has no relevance. Installments had to be made based on the total contractual value divided by no. of installments. The complainant waddled out of the commitments and did not make the payments, on time. OP2 contended that Citicorp Finance (I) Ltd., had the right to repossess the vehicle on default of installments. It is acting as per instructions of Citicopr Finance (I) Ltd., OP1.

3. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the OPs, jointly and severally, to pay Rs. 2,66,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a., from the date of complaint. They were also directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 3,000/- towards costs.

4. Appeals were filed by the OPs before the State Commission, which dismissed the appeals and imposed further costs in the sum of Rs. 1,000/- on each of the OPs, to be paid to the complainant.

5. We have heard the counsel for the parties. Both the counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that there is no deficiency on the part of the petitioners. They contended that the complainant is a defaulter and did not pay the amount as per the installments. They have relied upon the judgment of Suryapal Singh v. Siddha Vinayak Motors & Anr., II (2012) CPJ 8 (Supreme Court), wherein it was held that a defaulter, who failed to honour his commitment, under a hire purchase agreement, is not entitled to any compensation. Reliance was also placed on an authority of the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 8907 of 2009, titled Anup Sarmah v. Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors., dated 30.10.2012.

6. It was also argued that Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd., is the agent of principal, Citicorp Finance (I) Ltd. and the hire purchase agreement was executed by the complainant, and OP1, hirer, in favour of Citicorp Finance (I) Ltd. It was urged that the petitioner, being an agent of Citicorp Finance (I) Ltd., cannot be saddled with the liability, as alleged by the complainant.

7. Attention of this Commission was invited towards the undertaking given by the complainant. The said undertaking runs as follows :-

"I, Suryawanshi Bapu Appa, R/o. Chanda Tq. Karjat Dist., Ahmedna