IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) Dated 28-6-2010 PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 11571 OF 2009 Between: Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. ..... PETITIONER AND Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum-I, Hyderabad Dist., & others ...RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.No.11571 of 2009 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Chulam Mohammed) The matter rests on a narrow compass. The 4th respondent herein approached the petitioner-Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited for purchase of a bus and he was given a loan of Rs.5.80 lacs by the petitioner-bank on hire purchase basis. It is stated that the 4th respondent purchased a bus bearing no.AP 24 U 4995 and rented it to APSRTC on daily rent of Rs.3,500/-. As per the loan agreement dated 20-4-2001, the EMI was Rs.18,991/- for 35 months. It is stated by learned counsel for the bank that admittedly the 4th respondent failed to pay more than 7 installments to the bank and therefore the vehicle was repossessed by the bank on 4-1-2002. the 4th respondent filed CD No.45 of 2002 before the 1st respondent- Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum-I, Hyderabad District, under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act seeking redelivery of the vehicle and reimbursement of Rs.3,500/- per day towards loss of income from the date of repossession till the date of delivery and for compensation. The 1st respondent passed interim orders in IA No.15 of 2002 on 5-2-2002 directing the delivery of the vehicle to him on payment of Rs.1,13,950/- and on execution of personal bond for Rs.Six lacs by him. The 4th respondent was delivered with the vehicle on 27-2-2002 and thus the vehicle was in possession of the 4th respondent for a period of 53 days. It is stated that thereafter the vehicle was repossessed once again on 18- 3-2002 due to non-payment of installments and the 4th respondent filed CD No.214 of 2003 before the 1st respondent seeking redelivery of the vehicle and for compensation @ Rs.3,500/- per day for loss of income. Again the 1st respondent passed orders for redelivery of the vehicle and it was redelivered to the 4th respondent on 14-6-2003. It is stated both the CDs filed by the 4th respondent were disposed by a common order dated 9-8- 2004 by the 1st respondent whereby the claim of the 4th respondent for compensation @ Rs.3,500/- per day for a period of 141 days has been rejected. Aggrieved by the same, the 4th respondent filed appeals before the 2nd respondent-AP State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Hyderabad, in FA No.423 and 425 of 2005. The 2nd respondent-State Commission allowed the appeals filed by the 4th respondent by order dated 15-12- 2008 upholding the claim of the 4th respondent for loss of earnings @ Rs.3,500/- per day for the period of 141 days. The petitioner-bank filed revision petition No.1247 of 2009 before the 3rd respondent-National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, against the order passed by the 2nd respondent in the appeals filed by the 4th respondent. By the impugned order, the 3rd respondent confirmed the order passed by the 2nd respondent, which upheld the claim of the 4th respondent- barrower. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner-bank. 2. Mr.Vedula Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the concurrent finding of respondents 2 and 3 that the effect that the bank before taking repossession of the vehicle notice ought to have been served on the borrower and failure to do so will make liable the petitioner-bank to compensation is incorrect. Learned counsel submitted that the respondent-forums failed to see that the contract between the parties is purely a commercial contract and the parties are bound by the terms of the contract and there is no scope for reading principles of natural justice into such a contract. It is further stated that under Clause 9 of the contract, there is no requirement of giving notice before effecting repossession of the vehicle of a defaulter. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in ORIX AUTO FINANCE (INDIA) LTD. v. JAGMANDER SINGH[1]. 3. Admittedly, under the hire purchase agreement executed between parties, the petitioner-bank financed amounts for the purchase of the bus and was handed over to the borrower subject to compliance of the terms and conditions of the contract. As per the terms and conditions stated in the contract between the parties, if the borrower fails to pay the installments, in the case seven installments, as per Clause 9 of the contract, the petitioner-bank can take repossession of the vehicle and issuance of notice to the borrower before taking repossession is not contemplate in the contract entered into by the parties and therefore there is no question of violation of principles of natural justice in this case. The contract between the parties is purely a commercial contract and the parties are bound by the terms of the contract and there is no scope for reading principles of natural justice into such a contract. Further unless it is demonstrated that the contract is unconscionable or any of the terms of the contract are opposed to public policy, scope for interference by this Court in contractual matters in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution is almost non-existent. We are also fortified in our view in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Orix Auto Finance(India) Ltd.’s case (1 supra). 4. In the circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. No costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ________________ G.CHANDRAIAH,J Dated : 28-6-2010 Nrg. [1] (2006) 2 SCC 598