In Brief
In this appeal under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the Supreme Court held that a Financier retains ownership of a vehicle under a hire purchase agreement and has the right to repossess it when the hirer defaults on instalments. However, repossession cannot be effected through violence, assault, or intimidation. Where a standardized agreement implicitly requires notice before repossession, failure to serve proper notice at the correct address constitutes a deficiency in performance actionable for damages, but does not invalidate the repossession itself. Since the hirer had multiple unpaid instalments and was subsequently informed of the repossession, the appeal was allowed.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.