IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2011 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 13265 of 2011(G) ------------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- M.J.KURIAN, S/O. JOSEPH, AGED 55, MANAYANI HOUSE, PERUNNA, CHANGANACHERRY-686102. BY ADVS. SRI.K.R.SUNIL SMT.REENA GOPINATH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHANGANACHERRY POLICE STATION, CHANGANACHERRY 686 102. 2. SALORA ASSOCIATES PVT. LIMITED, (A SERVICE PROVIDER FOR BALCLAYS FINANCE) CHIRAMEL HOUSE, 375774, KURUSUPPALLI ROAD, RAVIPURAM, ERNAKULAM-682015. 3. NIKHIL KRISHNAKUMAR, S/O. KRISHNAKUMAR AGED 36, 6B, JOMER HEAVEN APARTMENTS ERNAKULAM.682 017. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS R3 BY ADVS. SRI.JAYKAR.K.S. , SRI.M.P.HARIKUMARAN PILLAI, SRI.ANIYANKUNJU VARGHESE, SRI.RAJESH THOMAS, SRI.M.P.KRISHNAN NAIR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.13265/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE SALE AGREEMENT DTD. 2.6.2010 EXECTED BY THE PETITIONER WITH THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P2:- COPY OF THE RECEIPTS ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 28.6.2010 ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD. 28.6.2010 ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P3:- COPY OF THE RECEIPTS ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 28.6.2010 ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P4:- COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT OF THE PETITIONER EVIDENCING THE REMITTANCE. P5:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 2.5.2011 SUBMITTED THE IST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R3(a):- COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF THE VEHICLE DTD. 18.1.2008. R3(b):- COPY OF THE INSURANCE CERTIFICATE DTD. 22.12.2010 OF THE VEHICLE, R3(c):- COPY OF THE RECEIPT NIO.444752 DTD. 28.6.2010. R3(d):- COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.444753 DTD. 28.6.2010. R3(e):- COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DTD. 25.2.2011. R3(f):- COPY OF THE CREDIT INFORMATION REPORT DTD 19.5.2011. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- WPC No.13265 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th May, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant, J. The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition seeking issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution to afford protection to the petitioner against attempts by respondents 2 and 3 to repossess Skoda Laura car bearing Reg.No.KL-39-A-66. 2. It is not disputed that the third respondent is the registered owner of the vehicle. The third respondent had availed financial assistance from one M/s Barclays Finance (not arrayed as a party) for purchase of the car. The second respondent is the service provider for the Barclays Finance. It is also not further disputed that under the agreement between the financier and the third respondent, the third respondent has a right of seizure if there be defaults in payment of instalments. Thus, the third respondent was in possession of the vehicle purchased by him with the financial assistance from Barclays Finance under an agreement of hypothecation. WPC No.13265/2011 2 3. The third respondent, later, entered into an agreement between the petitioner for sale of his vehicle. It is the case of the third respondent that the petitioner, though he has paid an advance amount, has not paid the balance amount due. It is the further case of the petitioner that the petitioner has subsequently been directly making payments due to the financier Barclays Finance. The petitioner complains that the second and third respondents acting in collision are likely to repossess the vehicle by employing anti-social elements. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has come to this Court seeking police protection. 4. The second respondent has entered appearance through counsel. The learned counsel submits that there is arrears of payment due to M/s Barclays Finance. M/s Barclays Finance has the legal right to repossess the vehicle in the event of default in payment of instalments. The learned counsel for the second respondent categorically asserts that the second respondent has no intention to employ any anti-social elements to repossess the vehicle. The financier has the right to repossess the vehicle and the second respondent as service provider to the financier is entitled to repossess the vehicle. If necessary, repossession shall be done only in accordance with law, submits the learned WPC No.13265/2011 3 counsel for the second respondent. 5. The third respondent has a tale of woes to narrate to this Court. According to the third respondent, the petitioner has committed flagrant violation of the agreement between the third respondent and the petitioner under which possession of the vehicle has been handed over to the petitioner. The petitioner is not making payments due to the third respondent. The third respondent wants to receive the payment of the amount admittedly due from the petitioner and finish off the transaction with the financier. The petitioner has no bonafides and has come to this Court with this petition in an attempt to cling on to the possession of the vehicle which according to the third respondent is getting deteriorated day by day. 6. We have considered all the relevant inputs. The petitioner apprehends repossession by respondents 2 and 3. Admittedly, the second respondent as the service provider of the financier has the right to repossess the vehicle. If the petitioner has a contention that the right of re-possession cannot be exercised by the financier or the second respondent acting on behalf of the financier, it is for the petitioner to go to the civil court and establish his case. In the present petition for affording police protection, we do not think it proper, necessary, feasible WPC No.13265/2011 4 or correct to go into the internecine disputes between the petitioner and the third respondent and the rights of the financier to repossess the vehicle. At the moment, we find no reason to assume that anti-social elements will be employed by the financier to enforce his right of repossession. Suffice it to say that we are firmly of the opinion that the petitioner must go to the civil court and seek appropriate directions. Exercising the power under Article 226, we cannot go into such intricate disputes between the parties about the existence of default or the right of the financier to re-possess the vehicle in accordance with the terms of the agreement. 7. With the observation that the petitioner must approach the civil court if he wants to resist the attempt by the financier to repossess the vehicle, this petition is dismissed. sd/- R.BASANT JUDGE sd/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE css/ true copy P.S.TO JUDGE