Judgment The plaintiff's case is that it carried on business in sale of motor vehicles, etc. on hire-purchase system, by executing a deed of agreement on 21st September, 1963 the plaintiff agreed to sell the truck in question to defendant No. 1 on hire-purchase system and defendant No. 2 became the guarantor. The price of the vehicle was fixed at Rs.10,000/-, Rs.2,000/- was paid. It was agreed that the balance of Rs.8,000/- together with the hire-purchase charges amounting to Rs.1,980/- would be paid in 18 equal instalments. For the first month Rs.545/- was payable and the subsequent payments would be made at the rate of Rs.555/- commencing from the 5th November, 1965. It was also agreed that hire-purchase charges would be paid at the rate of Rs.100/- per month if there be any default. After the 21st May, 1965, defendant did not make any further payment. So the agreement came to an end. But after the termination of the agreement, defendant No. 1 did not return the vehicle or make any payment. The suit is for a declaration of the plaintiff's title to the vehicle in question, for recovery of possession thereof and alternatively, for recovering a sum of Rs.9,670/- on account of the amount due under the contract and compensation. 2. Defendant No. 2 stated that he was not the guarantor. 3. Defendant No. 1 took the plea that the alleged agreement was not read over or explained to him. He did not know English language in which the deed of agreement had been drawn up. The vehicle met with an accident and a sum of Rs.3,501/- was paid by the Union Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd. to defendant No. 1. He made over that amount to the plaintiff. But the plaintiff did not give any credit for such sum. The hire-purchase charges are not claimable in law. 4. The learned Munsif accepted the plaintiff's version and decreed the suit. An appeal was preferred. The Appellate Court only allowed the deduction of Rs.3,501/-, varied the decree and stated that the defendant No. 1 was required to deposit the sum of Rs.6,169/- within two months of the date of the order passed by that Court. Hence, this appeal. 5. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that there was no hire-purchase law in India previously. That system has been borrowed from England. Hence, this appeal. 5. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that there was no hire-purchase law in India previously. That system has been borrowed from England. Even in England an agreement of hire-purchase does not include payment of any hire-purchase charges as compensation. Reference has been made to Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol. 16, Second Edn. para. 748 at p. 506 and Halsbury's Laws of England, Fourth Edn., Vol. 22, paras 37 and 281. According to section 2(d) of the Hire-Purchase Act of 1972, hire-charges are not claimable according to law. Hence this amount must be excluded. 6. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the plaintiff respondent has contended that according to the terms of the hire-purchase agreement, Ext. 2, hire-purchase charges are payable at the rate of Rs.100/- per month. This is a part of the agreement entered into between the parties. Even according to section 2(d) of the Hire-purchase Act, Hire-purchase price means the total sum payable by the hirer under a hire-purchase agreement. Since such clause to pay hire-purchase charges has been embodied in the deed of agreement, the plaintiff can legally enforce the same. 7. So the only question for determination is whether hire-purchase charges can be claimed by the plaintiff at the rate of Rs.100/- per month according to the terms of the deed of agreement, Ext. 2. 8. It is true that the concept of Hire-purchase was imported in this country from England. The position has been made clear by the provisions of the Hire-purchase Act of 1972. According to Supreme Court, a hire-purchase agreement is normally one under which an owner hires goods to another party called the hirer and further agrees that the hirer shall have an option to purchase the chattel when he has paid a certain sum or when the Hire-rental payments have reached the Hire-purchase price stipulated in the agreement, vide the P. 1185 of the case of (1) Sunderam Finance Limited v. State of Kerala, reported in AIR 1966 SC 1178 . 9. 9. Section 2(d) of the Act defines Hire-purchase as follows:- '''Hire-purchase price' means the total sum payable by the hirer under a Hire-purchase agreement in order to complete the purchase of or the acquisition of property in the goods to which the agreement relates; and includes any sum so payable by the hirer under the Hire-purchase agreement by way of a deposit or other initial payment or credited or to be credited to him under such agreement on account of any such deposit or payment, whether that sum is to be or has been discharged by payment of money or by transfer or delivery of goods or by any other means; but does not include any sum payable as a penalty or as compensation or damages for a breach of the agreement." It is necessary to state that Hire-purchase price, according to the aforesaid clause (d) of section 2, does not include any sum payable as a penalty or as compensation or as charges for breach of the agreement. A construction of the agreement, Ext. 2, shows that Rs.100/- per month was in fact payable as a penalty or as compensation. 10. It is true that Hire-purchase price means the total sum payable by the hirer under a Hire-purchase agreement. But the definition does not stop there because it goes on to say that such total sum is payable "in order to complete the purchase of or the acquisition of property." So, the aforesaid sum of Rs.100/-, which according to the plaintiff is payable as the Hire-purchase price, has no nexus with the aforesaid expression, "In order to complete" etc... The reason is simple because the aforesaid sum is not required to complete the purchase of or the acquisition of the property. That sum has no relation with the later words "any includes any sum so payable" etc. As stated before, as a matter of fact it is payable as damages or compensation. But since according to section 2(d) no such damages or compensation can be lawfully claimed it is held that the aforesaid agreement to pay a monthly sum of Rs.100/- as Hire-purchase charges cannot be claimed by the plaintiff. Thus, that amount will be excluded and after deducting Rs.1,980/- from the decretal amount of Rs.6,169/-, as stated by the learned District Judge, Burdwan, the plaintiff will get Rs.4,189/-. 11. The appeal is allowed in part. Thus, that amount will be excluded and after deducting Rs.1,980/- from the decretal amount of Rs.6,169/-, as stated by the learned District Judge, Burdwan, the plaintiff will get Rs.4,189/-. 11. The appeal is allowed in part. The appellant do deposit a sum of Rs.4,189/- to the credit of the plaintiff-respondent within one month from date. The suit is decreed in part for such amount together with proportionate costs in the courts below. Subject to that modification, the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge be affirmed. 12. The principal sum shall bear interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the suit till realisation. The costs also shall bear interest at 6% p.a. till realisation. There will be no order as to costs in this Court.