S. VENKATESH Vs. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in seizing lorry bearing registration No.AP-09-U-4849, contrary to the provisions of the Hire Purchase Act, 1972 and in violation of Judgment of the Supreme Court in Citicorp Maruti Finance Ltd. Vs. S. Vijayalaxmi. The petitioner sought for a direction to respondent No.2 to receive the balance amount of Rs.23,557/- and issue clearance certificate by releasing the vehicle to him.

(2.) The petitioner has purchased the above mentioned lorry by obtaining loan from respondent No.2 and entered into a hire purchase agreement with the latter. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that as against the sum of Rs.1,90,000/- borrowed from respondent No.2, he has repaid a sum of Rs.2,60,457/- under 24 instalments and that the balance amount due is only Rs.23,557/-. The petitioner is aggrieved by the alleged forcible seizure of the above mentioned vehicle.

(3.) A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed by respondent No.2 wherein it is inter alia stated that it has advanced a sum of Rs.1,95,000/- under Loan-cum- Hypothecation Agreement dated 18-9-2009; that the petitioner was irregular in paying the monthly instalments and that he is due in a sum of Rs.1,05,358/- as on 10-4-2012 and not Rs.23,557/- as claimed by him. It is further stated that as the petitioner failed to repay the instalments on schedule, on 11-8-2011 respondent No.2 issued a notice under RPAD which was acknowledged by the petitioner on 16-8-2011 and that on 19-1-2012 another notice was issued through registered post demanding payment of the balance amount within seven days from the date of receipt of the notice and the same was also received by the petitioner on 21-1-2012 and that inspite of service of notices, the petitioner has not repaid the amount. The counter-affidavit further averred that in view of the failure of the petitioner to repay the loan amount, the vehicle was seized by following the procedure under the hire purchase agreement. Respondent No.2 has also explained the procedure followed by it, namely, that it has issued telegram notice to the petitioner and the guarantor with a copy marked to the Station House Officer, Crime Police Station, Tirupati, on 6-2-2012 and that a reminder was also given on 3-5-2012 followed by legal notice dated 4- 1-2013 for payment of the balance amount. Respondent No.2 asserted that it has not violated the Judgment of the Apex Court in Citicorp Maruti Finance Ltd. .