SURYA PAL SINGH Vs. SIDDHA VINAYAK MOTORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Petition Has Been Preferred Against The Judgment And Order Dated 19-10-2011 Of The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Prima Facie It Appears That The Three Courts Below Erred In Not Considering The Facts Of The Case In Correct Perspective.

(2.) Under The Hire-Purchase Agreement, It Is The Financier Who Is The Owner Of The Vehicle And The Person Who Takes The Loan Retains The Vehicle Only As A Bailee/Trustee, Therefore, Taking Possession Of The Vehicle On The Ground Of Non-Payment Of Instalment Has Always Been Upheld To Be A Legal Right Of The Financier. This Court Vide Its Judgment In Sardar Trilok Singh V. Satya Deo Tripathi, 1979 4 SCC 396 Has Categorically Held That Under The Hire-Purchase Agreement, The Financier Is The Real Owner Of The Vehicle, Therefore, There Cannot Be Any Allegation Against Him For Having The Possession Of The Vehicle. This View Was Again Reiterated In K.A. Mathai V. Kora Bibbikutty, 1996 7 SCC 212, Jagdish Chandra Nijhawan V. S.K. Saraf, 1999 1 SCC 119 And Charanjit Singh Chadha V. Sudhir Mehra, 2001 7 SCC 417 Following The Earlier Judgment Of This Court In Sundaram Finance Ltd. V. State Of Kerala, 1966 AIR(SC) 1178; Lalmuni Devi V. State Of Bihar, 2001 2 SCC 17 And Balwinder Singh V. Cce, 2005 4 SCC 146.

(3.) In View Of The Above, Prima Facie We Are Of The View That The Courts Below Have Committed An Error In Granting Compensation To The Present Petitioner And Which Appears To Be Non-Sustainable In Law.