Relying on Ext.A1 document, which is an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant with respect to the exchange of two vehicles owned by each one of them and also Ext.A13 a statement of accounts produced by the plaintiff, the appellant contends that the courts below have erred in law in decreeing the suit.
2. The plaintiff was party No.2 in Ext.A1 and the appellant/defendant is party No.1. The appellant owned a Maruthi vehicle whereas the defendant owned a Piaggio Goods Vehicle three wheeler. One of the conditions of the agreement was the second party to Ext.A1 agreement was bound to pay hire purchase instalments of the vehicle which was owned by the first party. Suffice to say that the first party under Ext.A1 who is the defendant in the suit purporting to act in terms of Ext.A1 seized the vehicle from the possession of the plaintiff and it is found from the records that he sold off the vehicle. The plaintiff therefore laid the suit for the amount due to him for his vehicle as well as for Rs.33,200/- which according to him is the H.P. Instalment towards the vehicle which he purchased from the defendant.
3. The defendant resisted the suit by pointing out that as per the terms of Ext.A1 agreement, the plaintiff was bound to pay instalment on the due date and since he had defaulted, the vehicle was seized. It was contended that arrears were due from the plaintiff towards the financial facility extended by the Bank and therefore he was not entitled to any relief.
4. On the pleadings issues were raised. The evidence consists of the testimony of P.W.1 and documents marked as Exts.A1 to A15 from the side of the plaintiff. The defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and had Exts.B1 to B4 marked. Both the courts below on an independent evaluation of the evidence came to the conclusion that there was high handed action from the side of the defendant and the contention that the plaintiff had committed breach of contract is not correct. The courts below came to the conclusion that it was the defendant who acted contrary to the terms of the agreement. Accordingly, the trial court granted a decree for the suit amount with 12% future interest.
5. In appeal, the appellate court confirmed the finding of the trial court after independent evaluation of the evidence. But however found that grant of interest at 12% is excessive and was gracious enough to reduce it to 6%.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that both the courts below have not considered Ext.A13 a document which is produced by the plaintiff himself which will clearly show that Rs.33,200/- was due towards H.P. facility availed from the Bank. If that be so, the defendant had acted strictly in terms of the contract and he could not be found fault with for what he had acted.
7. There can be no doubt that Ext.A1 governs the parties. It is true that as per Ext.A1 the plaintiff has to pay the H.P. Instalment due with respect to Maruti van which he took possession of in exchange of his vehicle to the defendant. Both the courts below have concurrently found that the plaintiff has paid five instalments of H.P.dues and there is no evidence to show that he was in default. The courts below also considered Ext.A13 document and came to the conclusion that the scribblings found on Ext.A13 could not be taken as conclusive evidence of the claim of the defendant that amount is due from the plaintiff.
8. While this appeal was being heard, a specific question was put to the appellant as to assuming Rs.33,200/- is due as found in Ext.A13, whether the appellant could specify the period for which it was due. The answer was that it is immaterial because as per the agreement the dues will have to be paid by the plaintiff. The answer is indeed unsatisfactory. It is too difficult to accept the plea that if as a matter of fact the overdue shown in Ext.A13 which is not authenticated is amount due prior to the date of agreement Ext.A1, the plaintiff is liable to pay the same. Both the courts below have found that the seizure of vehicle by the defendant and the sale of the vehicle without notice to the plaintiff was quite uncalled for and unauthorized. The courts below found that there is a clear breach of contract on the side of the defendant and the decree as already mentioned followed.
9. After having heard learned counsel on both sides, and after going through the records, this court finds no grounds to take a different view. The view taken by the courts below seems to be a reasonable and justifiable and it could not be said that the findings are either perverse or contrary to the evidence on record. There was a counter claim before the trial court which does not appear to have been specifically dealt with by the trial court. But the appellate court has noticed that aspect and held that since there is no ground to interfere with the judgment and decree of the trial court, there is no merit in the counter claim. There is no reason to interfere with that finding.
There is no merit in this appeal and it is dismissed in limine.
P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.