Hire-purchase repossession must follow due process; self-help seizure is invalid, and later third-party rights may defeat relief.

Repossession and sale of a financed vehicle under a hire-purchase arrangement must be carried out only in accordance with law; contractual recovery clauses cannot justify self-help seizure by force. Actions contrary to due process or applicable regulatory guidelines are unsustainable. However, where the vehicle has already been sold, third-party rights have intervened, and the borrower has complied with earlier consumer forum directions, substantive interference becomes ineffective and no further operative relief follows.

---

---

Issues: Whether the repossession and sale of the financed vehicle under the hire-purchase arrangement were required to be carried out in accordance with law and whether any relief could still be granted after the appellant had complied with the earlier consumer fora orders.

Analysis: The hire-purchase arrangement and the recovery clauses could not authorise seizure of the vehicle by force. Recovery of financed or mortgaged goods, including goods under a hire-purchase agreement, had to be effected in due process of law, and any action contrary to that requirement or to the applicable regulatory guidelines could not be sustained. At the same time, the vehicle had already been sold and third-party rights had intervened, and the appellant had also complied with the directions of the consumer fora, making the prayer for substantive interference ineffective.

Conclusion: The challenge to the recovery process could not result in any operative relief in the appeals, and the respondent's position was sustained.

Final Conclusion: The appeals did not warrant interference and were brought to an end without any further relief to the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: Repossession and sale of hired or financed goods must be carried out only in accordance with law and cannot be justified by contractual clauses permitting self-help seizure by force.

---