The plaintiff, not being a party to the hire-purchase agreement, lacked standing to sue the defendant-hirer, and the plaintiff did not have the right to terminate the agreement for default in payment or breach of conditions without complying with the provisions of the Hire-Purchase Act, 1972.

This appeal arises from judgment dated 30.03.2013 delivered in Money Suit No.06/2008 by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.2, West Tripura, Agartala. The suit was instituted by the appellant for realization of money amounting to Rs.8,44,455/- from the defendant, the respondent No.1 herein. The appellant is a company incorporated under Companies Act, 1956 and the dealer of M/s Tata Motors Limited, the respondent No.2. The respondent No.1 entered in the hire-purchase agreement on 13.05.2002, with the respondent No.2 and acquired a Mini bus, later on registered as TR01A-1232. The respondent No.1 thus became the hirer of the said vehicle till payment of all monthly instalments by liquidating the loan with interest and other dues and charges. On completion of repayment, it was also agreed that the vehicle would be transferred to the hirer. Out of the total price of the said vehicle being Rs.5,73,000/- the defendant-hirer paid a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- at the time of entering into the hire-purchase agreement. It was agreed that the defendant-hirer will pay Rs.1,17,469/- as installment for the first month and Rs.16,700/- every month for a period of more than 34 months along with service tax as payable, from time to time, under the law.

2. The defendant-hirer failed to pay the instalments in time. The defendant-hirer also demanded for change of the engine of the said vehicle. The plaintiff replaced the engine of the said vehicle by a new engine on 14.01.2004. The vehicle was again taken custody by the defendant-hirer. Despite persuasion by the plaintiff, the defendant did not pay the outstanding. He lodged one complaint for deficiency of service against the plaintiff in the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, West Tripura, Agartala being CPA No.43/2004. When the said complaint was pending for adjudication, the respondent No.2, Tata Motors Limited transferred the ownership right of the said vehicle unilaterally to the plaintiff-appellant on 21.06.2006. Thus according to the plaintiff, he became the owner with all its power and character. As the defendant did not pay a sum of Rs.3,78,349/- the total outstanding came to Rs.4,67,687/- with service tax and interest and when the suit was instituted, the outstanding reached to Rs.8,44,455/- on 10.02.2008. The plaintiff has claimed that the said amount to be paid by the defendant-hirer with interest @ 10% per annum. According to the plaintiff, the cause of action arose on 13.05.2002 when the defendant-hirer and the respondent No.2, Tata Motors Limited entered into the hire-purchase agreement.

3. By filing the written statement, the defendant-hirer has categorically stated that a defective engine was installed in the vehicle, as a result it could not ply on the road for commercial operations till the said engine was replaced by the plaintiff and this is one of the reasons for delay in payment of the monthly instalments. On 20.08.2002 the defendant-hirer sent an advocate notice claiming compensation for loss of business, harassment and mental agony. The engine that was fitted in the said vehicle was a reconditioned one. That was also creating interruption in the operation of the vehicle. According to the hirer-defendant, he paid all the instalments and the date and amount of money against such payment of his written statement has been provided under paragraph-12.

4. The respondent No.2 filed a separate written statement where it is stated that the ownership of the said vehicle was transferred to the plaintiff without keeping any right or authority with the respondent No.2. Thus the hire-purchase agreement dated 13.05.2002 entered between the proforma-defendant as the owner and the defendant (respondent No.1) as the hirer was dissolved [see para-16 of the written statement filed by the respondent No.2 on 02.01.2010].

5. The trial court framed the following issues for determination of the suit:

(i) Whether the suit is maintainable;

(ii) Whether the suit is barred by limit