Delhi High Court
M.G.F. (India) Limited vs Sudesh Kumar And Anr. on 4 October, 2002
Equivalent citations: 103 (2003) DLT 4
Author: S Agarwal
Bench: S Agarwal
JUDGMENT
S.K. Agarwal, J.
1. This is a petition under Section 20 of the
Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 for reference of disputes to
the Arbitrator named in the hire purchase agreement.
2. It is pleaded that petitioner is a registered
company; respondent No. 1, Sudesh Kumar, entered into a
hire purchase agreement with the petitioner on 30th June,
1987 for taking on hire purchase TATA(d) Truck on 1987
model (registration No. PCK 2335); respondent No. 2 signed
the hire purchase agreement as a guarantor; the total
amount of the hire purchase was in the sum of
Rs. 2,70,300/- payable in 35 months; the first payment was
to be made on 1st September, 1987 being in the sum of
Rs. 8,500/- and subsequent payments were to be made on/or
before first of each succeeding calendar month of
Rs. 7,700/-. As per Clause 3 of the terms and conditions
of the said agreement, the hirer acknowledged that he
would hold the truck as hirer and bailee of the owners and
shall not have any right title or interest, as purchaser
thereof, until the owners transfer to him all their
rights, title and interest in the said vehicle as provided
in Clause 4 of the Agreement. Respondent No. 1 only paid
Rs. 1,51,700/- towards the monthly hire purchase and
additional hire purchase charges. He failed to pay the
balance amount of hire purchase charges, amounting to
Rs. 1,40,695/- despite repeated requests. It is pleaded
that respondent No. 1 was liable to pay a sum of
Rs. 6,90,397/- till 27th October, 1994.
3. It is also pleaded that vehicle was repossessed
on 7th May, 1993 by the petitioner company; in the year
1998, the respondents served notice on the petitioner
claiming damages @ Rs. 10,000/- per month stating therein
that due to terrorism in Punjab, the respondent No. 1's
business was badly affected, therefore, there was default
in payment of Installment; the petitioner took away the
truck from respondent No. 1 stating that the same would be
piled by the company itself, and he would be paid
Rs. 10,000/- per month after deducting remaining
Installments of the loan amount. The respondents claimed
damages at the said rate. Despite service of notice,
respondents did not appear.
4. Petitioner in support of its case has filed
affidavit by way of evidence; Ex. AW-1/1, power of
attorney; EX.AW-1/3, Original hire purchase agreement;
Ex.AW-1/4, Original proposal form; Ex.AW-1/5, office copy
of regd. notice dated 15th May, 1993; Ex.Aw-1/7, office
copy of letter dt.8.10.1991, Ex.AW-1/8, office copy of
telegram dt.26.9.1991; Ex.AW-1/9, additional affidavit
dt.11.9.2002; and Ex.AW-1/10, notice of the respondents.
5. The respondents have chosen not to appear and
contest this petition. No cause is shown. Accordingly,
original hire purchase agreement Ex.AW-1/3 is ordered to
be filed. Mr. Inderjit Gulati, Advocate, one of the named
arbitrators is appointed as the arbitrator to adjudicate
claims and counter claims of the parties, including the
disputes, whether respondents' committed any breach of
agreement dated 30th June, 1987 by failing to pay
Installments due and payable; whether the truck was
validly re-possessed by the petitioner on 7th May, 1993;
whether the petitioner is entitled to recover the balance
hire purchase amount of Rs. 1,40,695/- along with interest
after re-possessing the truck and the value of the truck
on the date of re-possession; whether the amount was
adjusted towards balance amount due by the petitioner and
whether the respondents are entitled to counter-claims, if
so to what amount. Ordered accordingly.
Petition stands disposed of.
