- (1.) Against re-possession of a Tata Sumo Car by the private respondent, viz. the respondent no. 3 Apeejay Finance Group Limited, the financier, this writ application has been moved by the hirer Sujit Ghosh on the allegation even after reporting such illegal and unauthorized re-possession of the vehicle which the writ-petitioner purchased for valuable consideration to the Officer-in-Charge, Deganga Police Station, North 24-Parganas no action has been taken by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 more particularly the respondent no. 2, the Regional Transport Authority, Motor Vehicles Department, North 24-Parganas, Barasat.
(2.) The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ-petitioner contended before this Court the aforesaid Tata Sumo Car was purchased by the writ-petitioner on a down payment of Rs. 2 lakhs under a hire-purchase agreement with the respondent no. 3, Apeejay Finance Group Limited. The said vehicle has also been registered with the Motor Vehicles Authority in the name of the writ-petitioner. Thereafter the writ-petitioner regularly paid the monthly instalments to the respondent no. 3, the financier. It is further contended in spite of the fact the writ-petitioner regularly paid the monthly instalments and there was no default, still without any prior notice the possession of the vehicle was forcibly taken over by the respondent no. 3 by employing goons. It is further contended although the matter was at once reported to the Deganga Police Station as well as to the Motor Vehicles Department no action has been taken by them. Although a copy of the letter addressed to the Officer-in-Charge, Deganga Police Station has been filed with the writ application being Annexure 'P-6' to this writ application but no copy of the letter addressed to the respondent nos. 2 and 3 has neither been filed with this writ application nor has been brought on record otherwise. Contending as aforesaid it is prayed that necessary order be passed directing the respondent no. 3 to hand over the custody of the vehicle to the writpetitioner and the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to take appropriate action in this regard in accordance with law and the respondent no. 3 be restrained from disposing the vehicle in question.
(3.) On the other hand, it is the case of the respondent no. 3 Apeejay Finance Group Limited and as it appears from the affidavit-in-opposition, the contention made therein has never been disputed by the petitioner by filing any reply, the vehicle in question was purchased by the writ-petitioner on being financed by it under a hire-purchase agreement. It is categorically denied that the said respondent received any down payment from the writ-petitioner and such down payment was made directly to the dealer. It was further claimed that the writ-petitioner was always in default in making of monthly instalments and on the date of re-possession of the vehicle the total due on that account was Rs. 2,22,289/-. It was the next contention the said hire-purchase agreement contained a default clause that in the event if the hirer failed to make payment of any instalment then in that case the financier have the right to re-possess the vehicle and as the hirer failed to make payment of several instalments in spite of repeated demands the vehicle was re-possessed, which was under hypothecation with the respondent no. 3. It is categorically denied that there has been any violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act or the rules framed thereunder in re-possessing the vehicle by the financier on default of payment of instalment by the hirer.;