The financier is entitled to repossess a vehicle under a hire purchase agreement despite borrower default.

JUDGMENT

Petitioners seek for the following reliefs:

i. “To call for the records relating to Exhibit P1 to Exhibit P5 and to issue a writ of mandamus, direction or order, commanding the respondents 1 and 2 to give adequate police protection to the life of the petitioners and workers engaged by them while putting their vehicle with registration No.KL-41-T-7389 in its use and also at the time when it was parked for loading and unloading purposes and also kept in the garage;

ii. To issue a writ of mandamus, direction order, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to take immediate action to identify the persons engaged by the respondents 3 and 4 to take possession the lorry of the petitioner which is covered by hire purchase agreement with respondents 3 and 4;

iii. To Issue a writ of mandamus, direction order, declaring that based upon arbitration agreement signed within the State of Kerala, the orders passed by City Civil Court, Calcutta to take possession of the vehicle may not be enforced by coercive direction to State Government to protect the right of the persons like the petitioners who obtained loan from the respondents 3 and 4 under hire purchase.”

2. Petitioners had obtained a finance for the purchase of a lorry from respondents 3 and 4. In the repayment of the hire purchase amount, petitioners committed default. Respondents obtained an order under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act , 1996, and thereafter, seized the vehicle. Subsequently, the vehicle was released to the petitioners on payment of the overdue amount. Even thereafter, petitioners committed default in repayment, and steps have been taken by respondents 3 and 4 to repossess the vehicle. At this juncture, petitioners have approached this Court seeking police protection for their lives as well as for the workers for putting the vehicle to use.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for residents 3 and 4 as well as the learned Government Pleader.

4. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the decision in Smart Security and Secret Service Agency vs. State Bank of India [2016(3) KLT 1] , it is noticed that the same is in connection with the loan due to a bank, wherein it was specifically mentioned that the use of strong arm tactics to recover the loan amount is not legal or ethical. The said decision has no bearing on the instant case.

5. Repossessing a vehicle covered by a hire purchase agreement for default in repayment of the hire purchase amount stands on a different footing altogether. Generally, the financier is entitled to repossess the vehicle by virtue of the terms of the agreement. The Supreme Court in Charanjit Singh Chadha and Others vs. Sudhir Mehra [(2001) 7 SCC 417] had observed that repossession of goods as per the terms of agreement will not amount to an offence.

6. Petitioners’ attempt is to prevent the vehicle from being repossessed by the financier. As long as the financier acts in accordance with law and under the terms of the hire purchase, this Court cannot restrain the financier from repossessing the vehicle. Police protection to put the vehicle to use when there is a default in repayment of the hire purchase amount cannot be granted.

7. Though this Court had shown indulgence to the petitioners by granting instalment payment by interim orders, the learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4 submitted that still, there are amounts overdue from the petitioners. In such circumstances, I am of the view that grant of police protection as prayed for will be an abuse of the process of law.

Hence, I find no merit in this writ petition and it is dismissed.

Sd/-