The seizure of a financed vehicle without prior notice is deemed unlawful, confirming the importance of adhering to legal protocols in repossessions.

JUDGMENT :

A.C. Behera, J.

1. This is an appeal under Section 96 read with Order 41, Rule 1 of the C.P.C., which has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 24.12.2005 and 07.01.2006 respectively in M.S. No.13 of 1999 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (FTC No.1), Bhubaneswar, wherein the suit vide M.S. No.13 of 1999 of the plaintiff was decreed preliminarily on contest against the defendants.

2. The case of the plaintiff in the suit vide M.S. No.13 of 1999 before the Trial Court against the defendants was that, she (plaintiff) purchased a jeep bearing registration No.OR-13-2661 under a hire purchase scheme on being financed by the defendant No.1 company through execution of a hire purchase agreement on dated 12.09.1994. As per such agreement, the plaintiff was required to pay Rs.2,57,520/- to the defendant No.1 in 36 monthly installments. For the repayment of the aforesaid loan amount, the plaintiff issued 34 post-dated cheques to the defendant No.2 indicating Rs.7,153/- in each cheque along with an another cheque indicating Rs.7,165/- and accordingly, the plaintiff paid Rs.2,26,134/- in total to the defendant No.1. The plaintiff was using the said jeep as Taxi in order to earn her livelihood. But, all of a sudden, surprisingly on dated 30.08.1997, the agents of the defendant No.1 company along with the defendant No.2 forcibly took away the said financed jeep bearing registration No.OR-13-2661 from the driver of the plaintiff without giving any notice to the plaintiff alleging default in payment of some installments and terminated the contract between the plaintiff and defendant No.1. The plaintiff had made the repayment of substantial amount of the loan through the aforesaid cheques. The plaintiff is an unemployed lady. She was earning Rs.300/- per day by using that jeep as a taxi. When, the defendants forcibly took away her jeep, then, without getting any way, the plaintiff approached the Civil Court by filing the suit vide M.S. No.13 of 1999 praying for passing a decree for proper calculation of the payments and dues after adjusting the payments made by her and to pass a decree directing the defendants to handover the jeep bearing registration No.OR-13-2661 to her (plaintiff) and also to pass a decree for damages i.e. Rs.1,54,500/- till filing of the suit and further to direct the defendants to pay at the rate of Rs.300/- per day to the plaintiff till the recovery of the Jeep from the defendants along with the cost and other relief, to which, the plaintiff is entitled for.

3. Having been noticed from the Trial Court in M.S. No.13 of 1999 filed by the plaintiff, the defendants contested the same through their joint written statement denying the allegations alleged by the plaintiff against them taking their stands therein that, as per the terms of the hire purchase agreement, the matters in dispute between the parties, should have been referred to the arbitrator, but, when without taking any step for referring the matter to the arbitration, she (plaintiff) has approached the Civil Court by filing the suit, for which, the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable under law. When, the plaintiff defaulted in payment of the loan installments violating the terms and conditions of the hire purchase agreement and when, there was specific indications in the hire purchase agreement that, the defendants are entitled to take possession of the financed vehicle from the plaintiff and in case of default in payment of the installment dues, the said hire purchase agreement shall be deemed to be terminated forthwith, then the taking up of the financed jeep from