Back
2017 Supreme(Tri) 102
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA, AGARTALA
S. TALAPATRA, J.
Surana Motors Pvt. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Smti. Rani Saha, wife of Sri Motilal Saha & Ors. - Respondent
RSA. No. 62 of 2013
Decided On : 18-01-2017
For the Appellant :Mr. A. K. Bhowmik, Sr. Advocate, Ms. M. Choudhury, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. R. R. Datta, Advocate, Mr. S. Pandit, Advocate
The plaintiff had discharged the liability of payment under the hire-purchase agreement, and the repossession was illegal. The defendants failed to prove their claim for overdue compensation. The plaintiff was entitled to compensation for illegal detention of the vehicle.
Headnote:
Hire-Purchase Agreement - Ownership Dispute - Hire-Purchase Act, 1972, Section 18 - Section 20 - Section 19
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff entered into a hire-purchase agreement with the defendant, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, for a Tata vehicle. The defendant repossessed the vehicle due to alleged default in payment by the plaintiff. The plaintiff sued for damages and compensation for the illegal repossession.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court decreed a sum of Rs. 3,72,426/- with interest. Both parties appealed, and the High Court remitted the suit for fresh adjudication. The trial court decided in favor of the plaintiff, except on the issue of repossession, as the plaintiff had restored possession of the vehicle. The trial court awarded compensation of Rs. 4,89,597/- with interest at 11% per annum.
Issues: Cause of action, ownership declaration, injunction, compensation for illegal detention
Ratio Decidendi: The plaintiff had discharged the liability of payment under the hire-purchase agreement, and the repossession was illegal. The defendants failed to prove their claim for overdue compensation. The plaintiff was entitled to compensation for illegal detention of the vehicle.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the defendants were directed to make the payment of the decreetal amount within two months.
1. This is an appeal under section 100 of the CPC from the judgment dated 19.08.2013 delivered in Title Appeal No. 29 of 2011 by the Additional District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala [Court No.3]. By the said judgment, the judgment dated 21.05.2011 delivered in Title Suit No. 77 of 2001 by the Civil Judge, (Sr. Division, West Tripura, Agartala, Court No. 2, has been affirmed.
2. The suit is instituted by the respondent No. 1 herein for declaration, realization of compensation and damages as the consequential reliefs. The admitted position is that the respondent No. 2, the defendant No. 1 in the suit is a company incorporated under the Companies Act. The said defendant No. 1 is a reputed manufacturer of different models of vehicles and it sells the vehicles to its prospective buyers either on payment of cash or under hire-purchase scheme. It is further admitted that the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 entered into the hire-purchase agreement on 25.01.1994 on various conditions including that after making initial payment of Rs. 97,670/- , the first instalment to the extent of Rs. 17,001/- shall be paid by 24.03.1994 and the instalments as agreed upon at Rs. 16,800/- shall be paid before the 24th day of every succeeding calendar month, unless the hirer shall have terminated the agreement. On the basis of this, the plaintiff purchased a Tata vehicle bearing Chassis Model SE-1210/42 having Chassis No.344 073 AVQ 1-00160 and Engine No. 692 DOI AVQ-100171.
3. It is also not disputed that on the ground of default of payment the said vehicle was taken away from the possession of the plaintiff by the defendants No. 1-2 at a place called Beltala in the State of Assam. According to the plaintiff, she paid the entire amount under the hire-purchase agreement. Due receipt or acknowledgement of such payment was made by the defendant No. 1. The last payment was made on 27.01.1996.
4. In the para-13 of the plaint [inTitle Suit No. 77 of 2001], the plaintiff has categorically asserted as under:
“The last payment that was made by the plaintiff on 27.01.1996, the plaintiff inquired from the defendant No. 1 through its office of the defendant No. 2 at Agartala as to what was the final amount that was to be paid by the plaintiff in reply to which she was informed through her husband that the plaintiff was due to pay Rs. 26,240/- including option money and accordingly the said payment was made by the plaintiff to the defendant No. 1 through the defendant No. 2.”
5. In reply to the said Para-13 of the plaint, the defendants in the written statement have disputed such contention of the plaintiff in the para-15 of the written statement. The defendants have stated that no enquiry whatsoever was made by the plaintiff from the office of the defendant No. 2 as claimed in respect of the balance payment. It is further stated that in fact the representative of the defendant No. 2, who is the authorized representative of the defendant No. 1, had been contacting the plaintiff for making the due payment. The plaintiff had promised to make such payment but she did not actually make any payment. The defendants have even denied that the plaintiff had paid the final instalment.
6. According to the defendants, the vehicle that is let out to a hirer under the hire-purchase contract belongs to the owner until and unless all dues are paid and the option of purchase by exercising and paying the option money by the hirer is completed. As the plaintiff had not cleared the dues in full nor had exercised the option of purchase by clearing the dues as per agreement within the due date i.e. January, 1996 and had illegally detained the vehicle in her custody and further that, she had been using the vehicle for deriving income from the same, the defendants were persuaded to take the vehicle in their possession after affording sufficient opportunities to the plaintiff for paying the dues.
7. In the para-16, the defendants, the appellant and the respondent No. 2 here
