ORDER Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.), President.—We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and with their assistance have also examined the record of the case. Admitted facts of this case are that the Mahindra & Mahindra Utility vehicle was purchased by the respondent and it was financed by the appellants No. 1 and 3 through appellant No. 2. It was under Hire-Purchase Agreement with the appellants and instalments were to be regularly paid by the respondent on due dates in terms of the Hire Purchase Agreement entered into between the parties. 2. At this stage, Shri P.P. Chauhan, learned Counsel for the respondent brought to our notice that 36 cheques of instalments had been issued by his client favoring the Financier i.e. the appellants. He further stated that 2-3 cheques were dishonoured but the amount of such cheques on information being given was deposited by his client Mr. Mahajan disputes this factual position. We are just noting these facts by way of passing reference. 3. Further admitted facts as borne out from the contemporaneous official record of the appellants is that the last payment was made by the respondent on 7.1.2003 and entry to this effect is contained in the statement of accounts filed by the respondent, Annexure C.2. As per this statement respondent had defaulted so far instalments due on- 11th January, 11th February and 11th March, 2003 are concerned. 4. In this background, vehicle was repossessed in terms of Clause 11 of Hire Purchase Agreement by the appellants. This resulted in filing of the complaint wherein the District Forum below after hearing the parties and taking note of the material placed before it, passed the following order:— "12. We, thus, direct the Ops to return the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-09-4286 to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be entitled to a sum of Rs. 3,74,638/- alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint, till actual payment is made. The Ops are also burdened with damages of Rs. 10,000/- alongwith cost of litigation which is quantified at Rs. 3,500/-. With these observations, the complaint stands disposed of accordingly." Hence, this appeal by the appellants. 5. 3,74,638/- alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint, till actual payment is made. The Ops are also burdened with damages of Rs. 10,000/- alongwith cost of litigation which is quantified at Rs. 3,500/-. With these observations, the complaint stands disposed of accordingly." Hence, this appeal by the appellants. 5. Shri Mahajan learned Counsel for the appellants disputes the jurisdiction of the For as under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to entertain disputes relating to Hire Purchase Agreement as in the present appeal, because relationship between the parties is not that of a consumer and service provider. Further according to him, on default being there, nothing prohibited his clients to exercise their right under the aforesaid agreement entered into between the parties subject to which the vehicle was financed. 6. We would have ordinarily gone into this question and would have determined the same, because it goes to the root of the case. But for the reasons to be recorded, we have purposely not gone into it. 7. Even if what is claimed by Mr. Mahajan is accepted to be correct for the sake of argument, even then appellants should have atleast issued a notice to the respondent calling upon him to liquidate the outstanding amount due within a reasonable time and on his failure to have done so, informing him that they will be well within their right to invoke Clause 11 of the Hire Purchase Agreement. There is nothing on the record produced by .the appellants. Further after the payment of last instalment on 7.1.2003, no such notice was issued. 8. We are aware that rights of the parties are governed by the terms of Hire Purchase Agreement, but that does not mean that it can bypass the test of reasonableness and/or fairness. Nothing prevented the appellants to have called upon the respondent to either liquidate the defaulted amount or face the consequences on the receipt of payment on 7.1.2003. And as already observed, nothing being there in this behalf produced by the appellants, we find that action of the appellants dated 20.3.2003 was highly unjust, besides being arbitrary and unreasonable and when tested on the touchstone of reasonableness within the meaning of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, it must fail. And as already observed, nothing being there in this behalf produced by the appellants, we find that action of the appellants dated 20.3.2003 was highly unjust, besides being arbitrary and unreasonable and when tested on the touchstone of reasonableness within the meaning of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, it must fail. It hardly needs to be clarified in this behalf that all documents like Hire Purchase Agreement, laws, agreements etc. are subordinate as well as subject to the provisions of Constitution of India. We are also well aware in this behalf that when the parties have entered into a contract, their rights are governed by the terms of such a contract. However, we are of the firm view that present case is one where before repossession respondent should have been given an opportunity to either liquidate the defaulted amount or face the consequences. That having not been done, without going into all other grounds urged by Shri Mahajan, we dispose of this appeal and dismiss the same while upholding the order of the District Forum below. 9. At this stage, Mr. P.P. Chauhan stated that when the vehicle was taken over by the appellant it was in running condition. In addition to the relief granted by the District Forum below which we uphold, we further direct that the vehicle shall be returned by the respondent in the same condition. We may further hasten to add that this will not preclude and/or disentitle the clients of Mr. Mahajan to take such action as permissible to them under law for recovery of its outstanding amount. Direction regarding return of vehicle shall be complied with by the appellants within 30 days of the receipt of copy of this order. Subject to these directions, appeal stands dismissed. All interim orders passed from time to time shall stand vacated forthwith. Office is directed to make copy of this order available to the parties free of cost as per Rules. Appeal dismissed.