IMPORTANT POINT
Hire-Purchase – Repossession of vehicle by Company for non-repayment of instalments of loan is justified.

ORDER

S.P. Tavade, President—Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South Mumbai in consumer complaint no.CC/08/110, dated 25/07/2014, the original complainant has preferred this appeal. The parties to this appeal herein after shall be called and referred to as per their status in the original consumer complaint.

The brief facts of the case are as under:-

2. The complainant had purchased the commercial vehicle Model No.207 DL from the OP no.2. The OP no.1(a) is the manufacturer and the OP no.1(b) is the Finance Company from whom the complainant had taken loan for purchasing the vehicle. It was contended that the vehicle was registered with Raigad RTO, who gave Registration Number as MH-06-AG-81. The complainant used the vehicle for some period. He took his vehicle to the respondent no.2 for first free service but the OP no.2 refused to accept the vehicle for servicing on the ground that the R.C. number of the vehicle namely, MH-06-AG-81 was not correct as per the record. Thereafter, the complainant took his vehicle to some other Garage and got the servicing done. The complainant sought the RC Book and Insurance policy from OP no.2. But it was not provided on the ground that RC Book was with the OP no.1(b). It was contended that the complainant used to pay regular installments but after some period the installment of loan was outstanding. Hence, the vehicle was seized by the OP no.2. The complainant made payment of Rs.57,000/- and the vehicle was released.

3. It was contended that in the record of OP nos.1(a) & 1(b) the Registration number of the vehicle was mentioned as MH-06-AG-85, whereas the correct number was MH-06-AG-81. It was contended that even the matter was referred for pre- litigation Lok Nyayalay, wherein also the RC number was shown as MH-06-AG-85. The OP nos.1 & 2 had mentioned wrong number of vehicle in their account. It was contended that in the year 2008, the complainant came to know that the vehicle was manufactured in the year 2004 but the said fact was concealed by the OP nos.1 & 2. The complainant purchased the vehicle in the year 2006. It was alleged that the OP nos.1 & 2 have sold the old vehicle to the complainant. Hence, the complainant has filed the consumer complaint and claimed price of the vehicle and interest thereon.

4. The notice of the complaint was issued to the OPs. The OP nos.1(a) & 1(b) appeared and resisted the claim. It was contended that the complainant was knowing the year of manufacturing and it was never concealed by the OPs that it was old vehicle. It was contended that there was no mechanical defect in the vehicle. It was contended that the complainant had availed the heavy discount of Rs.76,000/- from the OP no.2. The OP no.1(b) had given loan of Rs.4 lakhs to the complainant, under the Hypothecation Agreement. The complainant had paid only Rs.1,63,346/-. The complainant never paid the monthly installment in time. The complainant was supposed to repay the loan amount in 30 monthly installments, out of which he paid 17 monthly installments. It was contended that in the record of OP nos.1(a) and (b) registration number of the vehicle of the complainant was noted as MH-06- AG-85 instead of MH-06-AG-81. It was sheer inadvertent mistake and the same was subsequently corrected. The complainant was trying to take undue advantage of inadvertent error on the part of OP no.1. It was contended that the complainant never gave details of heavy repairs carried out by the unknown Garage. It was contended that the complainant failed to repay the loan. Hence the vehicle was seized. It was contended that the Agreement between the OP no.1(a) and 2 is on principal to principal basis. Therefore, the OP no.1(a) is not vicariously liable for the alleged acts of OP no.2. It was contended that the new vehicle was sold to the complainant. It was never used vehicle. There was no mechanical defect in the vehicle. Therefore, it was pra