ANNAMALAI FINANCE LTD Vs. K JAYAPRAKASH NARAYANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant in O.S. 369 of 1991 on the file of Sub-Court, Dindigul is the petitioner herein. THE respondent herein filed the said suit against the petitioner for recovery of a sum of Rs. 16,850-75 together with interest. THE respondent's case is that he is running a Xerox and Job Type Centre. THE petitioner is a finance company and the respondent had approached the petitioner company for financial assistance for purchase of Nelco Plain Paper Copier for his job work. Both had arrived at an arrangement and the respondent had executed a hire purchase agreement on 5.2.88. Apart from that he also executed a pronote and deposited the title deed of his immovable property with the petitioner. THE schedule of repayment is that the respondent has to repay the loan amount in 36 monthly instalments, the first instalment being at Rs. 2,110/- and the remaining instalments at Rs. 1,941/-. THE respondent paid a sum of Rs. 33,657/- by way of draft, cheques and cash on various dates from 22.3.88 to 5.1.90. Since the machine was under repair, the respondent procured another machine Modi Xerox on 6.3.90. When the respondent was away, the petitioner's representatives came to the respondent's premises and seized the Modi Xerox, inspite of the respondent's objection. On 8.3.90, the respondent contacted the petitioner by phone and offered to remit Rs. 10,000/- and requested him to release the machine seized by the petitioner. As the petitioner agreed for the same, the respondent went to the petitioner's office at Coimbatore and remitted a sum of Rs. 10,000/- and requested the petitioner to release the machine. THE petitioner refused to release the same and informed the respondent that unless he settled the entire account, the machine cannot be given back to him. THE respondent again went to the petitioner's office on 19.3.90 with money and requested the petitioner to give the account in respect of the balance amount due by him. But the petitioner refused to give the accounts and directed the respondent to remit Rs. 32,500/- in full settlement of the claim. Though the amount claimed by the petitioner is much higher, having no other option, the respondent has remitted the amount of Rs. 32,500/-. As per the respondent, he has over paid the petitioner and according to the particulars given in the claim petition, the respondent is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 16,850-75.

(2.) THE petitioner disputed the claim of the respondent by filing the written statement and also has raised the question of jurisdiction contending that as per the hire purchase agreement, the parties have agreed that only the Court at Coimbatore has jurisdiction and as such the suit filed at Dindigul is not maintainable.

(3.) THE respondent had stated in his plaint the cause of action arises on the date of the hire purchase agreement i.e., on 5.2.88 at Coimbatore. He has further stated that the cause of action arises on 5.3.90 on which date the Modi Xerox machine had been seized from his premises instead of the Nelco Plain Paper Copier, which is the subject matter of the lease agreement.