Judgment and Order : 1. This is an appeal under section 100 of the CPC from the judgment dated 19.08.2013 delivered in Title Appeal No. 29 of 2011 by the Additional District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala [Court No.3]. By the said judgment, the judgment dated 21.05.2011 delivered in Title Suit No. 77 of 2001 by the Civil Judge, (Sr. Division, West Tripura, Agartala, Court No. 2, has been affirmed. 2. The suit is instituted by the respondent No. 1 herein for declaration, realization of compensation and damages as the consequential reliefs. The admitted position is that the respondent No. 2, the defendant No. 1 in the suit is a company incorporated under the Companies Act. The said defendant No. 1 is a reputed manufacturer of different models of vehicles and it sells the vehicles to its prospective buyers either on payment of cash or under hire-purchase scheme. It is further admitted that the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 entered into the hire-purchase agreement on 25.01.1994 on various conditions including that after making initial payment of Rs. 97,670/- , the first instalment to the extent of Rs. 17,001/- shall be paid by 24.03.1994 and the instalments as agreed upon at Rs. 16,800/- shall be paid before the 24th day of every succeeding calendar month, unless the hirer shall have terminated the agreement. On the basis of this, the plaintiff purchased a Tata vehicle bearing Chassis Model SE-1210/42 having Chassis No.344 073 AVQ 1-00160 and Engine No. 692 DOI AVQ-100171. 3. It is also not disputed that on the ground of default of payment the said vehicle was taken away from the possession of the plaintiff by the defendants No. 1-2 at a place called Beltala in the State of Assam. According to the plaintiff, she paid the entire amount under the hire-purchase agreement. Due receipt or acknowledgement of such payment was made by the defendant No. 1. The last payment was made on 27.01.1996. 4. According to the plaintiff, she paid the entire amount under the hire-purchase agreement. Due receipt or acknowledgement of such payment was made by the defendant No. 1. The last payment was made on 27.01.1996. 4. In the para-13 of the plaint [inTitle Suit No. 77 of 2001], the plaintiff has categorically asserted as under: “The last payment that was made by the plaintiff on 27.01.1996, the plaintiff inquired from the defendant No. 1 through its office of the defendant No. 2 at Agartala as to what was the final amount that was to be paid by the plaintiff in reply to which she was informed through her husband that the plaintiff was due to pay Rs. 26,240/- including option money and accordingly the said payment was made by the plaintiff to the defendant No. 1 through the defendant No. 2.” 5. In reply to the said Para-13 of the plaint, the defendants in the written statement have disputed such contention of the plaintiff in the para-15 of the written statement. The defendants have stated that no enquiry whatsoever was made by the plaintiff from the office of the defendant No. 2 as claimed in respect of the balance payment. It is further stated that in fact the representative of the defendant No. 2, who is the authorized representative of the defendant No. 1, had been contacting the plaintiff for making the due payment. The plaintiff had promised to make such payment but she did not actually make any payment. The defendants have even denied that the plaintiff had paid the final instalment. 6. According to the defendants, the vehicle that is let out to a hirer under the hire-purchase contract belongs to the owner until and unless all dues are paid and the option of purchase by exercising and paying the option money by the hirer is completed. As the plaintiff had not cleared the dues in full nor had exercised the option of purchase by clearing the dues as per agreement within the due date i.e. January, 1996 and had illegally detained the vehicle in her custody and further that, she had been using the vehicle for deriving income from the same, the defendants were persuaded to take the vehicle in their possession after affording sufficient opportunities to the plaintiff for paying the dues. 7. 7. In the para-16, the defendants, the appellant and the respondent No. 2 herein have asserted as under: “It is stated that on the day of repossession of the vehicle by the defendants an amount of Rs. 34,453/- was due as over-due compensation against the plaintiff. It is absolutely incorrect assertion on the part of the plaintiff that the repossession by the defendants was in any way illegal or without authority of law. The defendants are not liable to pay any alleged loss of the plaintiff because of the repossession inasmuch as the repossession was done on the basis of hire-purchase agreement. It may be mentioned here that the ledger account will show that plaintiff was required to pay prior to repossession a sum of Rs. 34,443/- after deducting Rs. 10/- as rebate from over-due compensation of Rs. 34,453/- and after that date of repossession plaintiff could take back the vehicle on payment of Rs. 34,443/- plus Rs. 9,000/- spent by defendant as repossession cheque. Defendants terminated the agreement and took repossession of the vehicle on 07.11.2000 in terms of Clause-7 of the Agreement for breach of Clause-5 or the agreement by the plaintiffs.” 8. For purpose of reference, Cluse-7 of the agreement is reproduced hereinbelow: “7. The owners may terminate, with or without previous notice, this Agreement and forthwith retake and recover possession of the vehicle in any of the following events: (a) If for any reason whatsoever any hire payment or part thereof is in arrear and left unpaid for a period of seven days after the date fixed for its payment. (b) If the Hirer commits or suffers any breach of the conditions and obligations herein stipulated to be observed and performed by him. (c) If the Hirer omits to inform the Owners within 48 hours thereafter of any accident which causes either damage to the vehicle or bodily injury to any third party or damage to any other vehicle or property. (d) If the Hirer dies, becomes insolvent or has a receiving order made or an insolvency notice served upon him or an attachment is levied on any of his property or the Hirer allows the vehicle to be seized in distress or execution or under any other process of law. (d) If the Hirer dies, becomes insolvent or has a receiving order made or an insolvency notice served upon him or an attachment is levied on any of his property or the Hirer allows the vehicle to be seized in distress or execution or under any other process of law. (e) If the Hirer fails to get the endorsement effected by the registering authority in the event the vehicle is registered in the name of Hirer as per Condition No. 4 or to allow inspection of the Registration Certificate and the Permit to the Owners of their representatives, when demanded, or plies the vehicle on a route different from what was agreed to. (f) If the Owners find the information furnished by the Hirer and/or the Guarantor while making proposal to the Owners for the Hire-purchase facility to be false or incorrect; (g) If at any time the vehicle is used for any purpose other than that stated in the proposal or is used for any illegal or unlawful purposes and their right to recover arrears of hire payments, interest on overdue hire payments and damages for breach of this Agreement and it is further agreed that if the hiring is determined by Owners or by the Hirer in the manner herein provided, all hire payments, interest on overdue hires and damages for the breach of this Agreement up to the date of such determination shall be paid by the Hirer to the Owners and no payment credit or allowance in respect of any payment previously made shall be made or allowe4d to the Hirer. Nothing herein contained shall prejudice or affect the right of the Owners to use the Hirer for the overdue hires and interests on overdue hires and damages in lieu of retaking possession thereof as aforesaid.” 9. According to the defendants, the agreement was terminated without previous notice. Immediately thereafter, the vehicle was repossessed as the arrear was left unpaid for a period of 7 days after the date fixed for its payment. 10. The plaintiff has instituted the suit admittedly for realizing the damage she suffered for the said repossession which according to her is grossly illegal and hence, she had sought for recovery of the damage including the business loss that she suffered for the said illegal repossession. 10. The plaintiff has instituted the suit admittedly for realizing the damage she suffered for the said repossession which according to her is grossly illegal and hence, she had sought for recovery of the damage including the business loss that she suffered for the said illegal repossession. The plaintiff has given the account of damage as follows: “21(i) That at present the plaintiff is entitled for the compensation for illegal retention of her vehicle from 07.112000 to 10.10.2002 i.e. for 703 days. (a) @ Rs. 945x523 days i.e. Rs. 4,94,235.00/- (b) @ Rs. 1000 per day plus Rs. 10 per k.m. The vehicle will run minimum 200 k.m. per day. So, (i) Rs. 1000/- per day x 180 days plus Rs. 10 per k.m. for 200 k.m i.e. Rs. 10 x 200 k.m. = Rs. 2000/- per day x 180 days Rs.5,40,000.00/- i.e. Total Rs.10,34,235.00/- Further the plaintiff is also entitled for loss and damage of the said vehicle Rs. 2,89,202.00/- and for cost for bringing the said vehicle from Amingaon to Agartala Rs. 12,215.00/- So the plaintiff is entitled for (i) Retention charge Rs. 10,34,235.00/- (ii) Repairing charge for loss and damage of the vehicle Rs. 2,89,202.00/- (iii) Cost for bringing the vehicle at Agartala Rs. 12,215.00/- Total Rs.13,35,652.00/- 11. There is no dispute that the vehicle was released on 10.10.2002 and the vehicle was in the custody of the defendants for a period of 703 days. On the basis of such pleadings, the trial court formulated as many as 4 issues which are as under: (I) Whether the plaintiff has any cause of action for filing the suit? (II) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree declaring the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the vehicle AS-01-C4592 Model SE-1210/42 Chassis No. 344073, Engine No. 692DO1 AVQ-100171? (III) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get permanent/mandatory injunction to get back the said vehicle in running and good condition at Agartala from the defendants? (IV) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get decree for compensation for an amount of Rs. 13,35,652/- for illegal detention etc. of the said vehicle by the defendants? 12. The plaintiff has admitted as many as 10 documents (Exhibit-1-10) and examined herself but the defendants did not even adduce any documentary evidence. By the judgment dated 30.08.2004, the Civil Judge [Sr. Division] decreed a sum of Rs. 13,35,652/- for illegal detention etc. of the said vehicle by the defendants? 12. The plaintiff has admitted as many as 10 documents (Exhibit-1-10) and examined herself but the defendants did not even adduce any documentary evidence. By the judgment dated 30.08.2004, the Civil Judge [Sr. Division] decreed a sum of Rs. 3,72,426/- with interest on the decreetal amount at 3% per annum from the date of the judgment till realization of the decreetal amount. Against the said judgment both the plaintiff and the defendants preferred separate appeals being RFA. No. 15 of 2004 and RFA. No. 10 of 2008 before the Gauhati High Court. During pendency of the appeals, the plaint was amended by the order dated 21.01.2010 and in view of that amendment, the Gauhati High Court allowed the said appeals to a limited extent by remitting the suit for fresh adjudication after affording opportunities to the defendants to file the additional written statement against the amended part of the plaint and to allow the parties to lead further evidence on framing the additional issues, if any. As consequence thereof, the judgment and decree dated 30.08.2004 passed by the trial court was set aside. 13. One additional issue was framed on 28.08.2010 which is as under: (v) To what other relief/reliefs the plaintiff is entitled? Both the plaintiff and the defendants examined one more witness each in support of their additional pleadings. All the issues were decided in favour of the plaintiff except the issue No. 3 which according to the trial court had become infractous as the plaintiff had restored the possession of the said vehicle. The trial Court has decided the issue No. 4 on returning the following findings: “18. It is an admitted fact that the defendant No. 1 had detained the truck of the plaintiff bearing registration No. AS.01-C-4592 and repossessed the said truck in Gauhati for 703 days on a plea that as per terms and conditions of the hire-purchase agreement the plaintiff Smt. Rani Saha did not pay the amount of over drew compensation amounting to Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) to the defendant No. 1 but the D.W. 1 Sir P.S. Nair in his cross examination stated that he cannot say whether, the defendants had issued any letter or not to the plaintiff within a period from Jan. 96 to Nov. 30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) to the defendant No. 1 but the D.W. 1 Sir P.S. Nair in his cross examination stated that he cannot say whether, the defendants had issued any letter or not to the plaintiff within a period from Jan. 96 to Nov. 2K with a request to pay the outstanding amount of loan money. It is also an admitted fact that after repossession of the aforesaid truck by the defendant No. 1 he did not take any step to recover the amount of over drew compensation from the plaintiff by invoking any process of law. So, from the evidence on record and the documents proved by the parties it has been proved beyond any shadow of doubt that the plaintiff is entitled to get reliefs to some extent as sought for in her plaint. Now, the pertinent question is what will be the exact quantum of compensation money. The plaintiff demanded some amount for the repairing of the vehicle but she produced some cash memo (Ext. 10 series) in support of her plaint from which it is found that the plaintiff have borne Rs. 8,711/- (Rupees eight thousand seven hundred eleven) for repairing her vehicle in question after receipt of the vehicle from the defendant No. 1 in damaged condition. As per the exhibited documents (bills and cash memo) the plaintiff is entitled to get repairing charge from the defendants and that amount of repairing charge is hereby assessed to Rs. 8,711/-. The plaintiff Smt. Rani Saha further demanded Rs. 945/- per day as compensation w.e.f. 07.11.2K A.D. to 10.10.2K A.D.(total for 703 days). the plaintiff also claimed Rs. 1000/- per day + Rs. 10 per KM. considering the vehicle would run 200 km. per day and for that the plaintiff claimed compensation for Rs. 10,34,235/-. P.W-2, Sri Matilal Saha, in his examination-in-chief stated that after institution of this suit he collected a copy of modified detention rate of the trucks from the central M.T. Pool, A. D. Nagar, Agartala for proper calculation of the compensation money. As per the report of the central M.T. Pool, the detention charge of trucks w.e.f. 07.11.2K to 15.08.2001 was Rs. 945/- per day and subsequently, as the price index has been increased after 1995 the plaintiff is entitled to get compensation for illegal detention of her vehicle from 07.11.2K to 10.10.2K i.e. for 703 days @ Rs. As per the report of the central M.T. Pool, the detention charge of trucks w.e.f. 07.11.2K to 15.08.2001 was Rs. 945/- per day and subsequently, as the price index has been increased after 1995 the plaintiff is entitled to get compensation for illegal detention of her vehicle from 07.11.2K to 10.10.2K i.e. for 703 days @ Rs. 1000/- per day + Rs. 10 per km. and thereby the total compensation comes to Rs. 10,34,235/-. P.W-2 further deposed that the plaintiff is also entitled for loss and damage of the said truck which comes to Rs. 2,89,202/- and since the plaintiff have borne the expenditure of Rs. 12,215/- for bringing her vehicle to Agartala from Gauhati, the total compensation comes to Rs. 13,35,652/-. It is an admitted fact that the truck of the plaintiff was never hired by the central M.T. Pool, A. D. Nagar, Agartala at any point of time and though the plaintiff claimed that the truck in question was her only source of income but the plaintiff did not submit any copy of income tax return to this Court for the period before 07.11.2K and as such it is not clear to this Court what was the actual income of the plaintiff from her said truck in question during that period. The plaintiff also failed to produce her book of accounts showing her earlier income from the truck in question and thereby to enable this Court to make a proper assessment of the compensation money, the plaintiff of this suit is entitled to get. In my considered view, it is not possible for the owner of a vehicle like truck to carry his/her transport business everyday in an English Calendar month by engaging on the road. It is fact that the vehicle was detained in the custody of the defendant No. 1 at Gauhati wrongfully and as such, plaintiff could not run/ply her truck on the road for 703 days. however, it may safely be presumed that the owner of a truck will have ability to run his/her truck on the road at least for 20 days in a month and by that way, the owner of the vehicle can earn at least Rs. 1000/- per day as lumpsum. The vehicle in question was detained for 703 days. So, taking the monthly income of the plaintiff from her aforesaid truck as Rs. 1000/- per day as lumpsum. The vehicle in question was detained for 703 days. So, taking the monthly income of the plaintiff from her aforesaid truck as Rs. 20,000/- per month the actual compensation for illegal detention of the vehicle by the defendant No. 1 for 703 days comes to Rs. 4,68,671/-. Apart from this, the plaintiff is also entitled to get Rs. 12,215/- from the defendant which she incurred for bringing her vehicle from Amingaon, Assam to Agartala and further Rs. 8,711/- as repairing cost of the vehicle. So, total compensation comes to Rs. 4,89,597/-. Accordingly, this issue is answered in affirmative but partially in favour of the plaintiff. 19. Admittedly, the plaintiff received back her aforesaid truck from the defendant No. 1 on 11.10.2002 as per order of the Hon’ble High Court, dated 03.10.2002 passed in F.A. 03 of 2002. So, the defendants of this suit were liable to pay compensation to the plaintiff on and from 11.10.2002. D.W-1, Sri P. S. Nair in his cross examination stated that the defendant No. 1 realized interest over the loan money @ 12% per annum. As the plaintiff sustained pecuniary loss due to illegal activities of the defendants, the plaintiff is also entitled to get interest on the compensation money of Rs. 4,89,597/- @ 11% per annum w.e.f. 11.10.2002 till the payment of compensation money by the defendants to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is also entitled to get the cost of the suit. So issue No. 5 is hereby decided in favour of the plaintiff.” 14. The defendants being aggrieved preferred an appeal under Section 96 of the C.P.C. against the said judgment dated 21.05.2011 as in the court of the District Judge, West Tripura being T.A. No. 29 of 2011. In the course of time, the said title appeal was transferred to the court of the Addl. District Judge, West Tripura [Court No. 3] for hearing. After hearing, by the impugned judgment dated 19.08.2013, the first appellate court has affirmed the finding of the trial court on observing as under: “10. Regarding issue No. 1 I find that since the appellants repossessed the vehicle on 07.11.2000 A/D and respondent asserted that she paid the entire cost of the chassis by 18 instalments and there was a dispute regarding payment of the entire amount. Regarding issue No. 1 I find that since the appellants repossessed the vehicle on 07.11.2000 A/D and respondent asserted that she paid the entire cost of the chassis by 18 instalments and there was a dispute regarding payment of the entire amount. Learned Court below rightly decided the issue No. 1 regarding cause of action for filing the suit. 11. In deciding issue No. 11 learned Court below discussed the relevant evidence adduced by the respondent side. There is no dispute that the appellants repossessed the truck at Guwahati and it was detained for 703 days. Respondent exhibited 18 Nos. of money receipt which were marked as Exbt.3 series and by proving these money receipts, respondent has been able to prove that the entire money of hire-purchase agreement was paid to the appellants. From the cross of D.W-1 namely, P.S. K. Nair I find that he admitted that up to 27th January, 1996 the respondent had paid the entire money of hire-purchase agreement though the witness voluntarily stated that payment were made after stipulated period. From the admission made by D.W-1 during cross I find that the respondent has proved that she has made the payment of entire amount of the hire-purchase agreement. At the time of argument learned counsel for the appellants relied upon Exbt. 5 which is a letter dated 16.11.2000 issued by the respondent admitting overdue compensation. From the evidence adduced by the respondent side I find that subsequently, the appellants deviated from the admission part made in the Exbt. 5 by issuing Advocate’s notice. So, the Exbt. 5 cannot be based on the sole document on behalf of the appellants while they did not adduce any documentary evidence. I have gone through the citations relied upon by the learned counsel of the appellants. In both the cases Hon’ble Apex Court as well as Hon’ble Calcutta High Court decided in criminal proceedings where Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court find that there was no ingredients of committing of any offence while the authority exercised their power under hire-purchase agreement. The present case is a case of civil nature. These two citations are not applicable in the instant appeal. In this appeal it is to be decided whether respondent has made the entire hire-purchase consideration or not. The present case is a case of civil nature. These two citations are not applicable in the instant appeal. In this appeal it is to be decided whether respondent has made the entire hire-purchase consideration or not. In this regard, I find that respondent successfully proved that she has made the full payment of hire-purchase agreement and consequently, she became the owner of the vehicle and the appellants had no right to repossess the vehicle after ownership has been transferred. From the impugned judgment of the court below I find that learned Trial Court has taken the relevant evidence into consideration while deciding the issue No. II, I do not find there any perversity or illegality in the findings of the issue No. II. 12. Regarding issue No. III there is no dispute that during pendency of the suit, respondent had received back her vehicle in question from the appellant No. 1 by an order passed by the Hon’ble High Court. So, no need to discuss the issue No. III.” 15. The said judgment is challenged in this appeal. In the memorandum, the appellants have illustrated how the due had accrued in the account of the plaintiff. For the purpose of reference, the relevant part of the memo of appeal is extracted hereunder: B. For that 18 money receipts relating to payment of installments by the plaintiff were exhibited in Exhibit-3. The date of payment, amounts of payment, the due date of payment and the period of delay as evident from those exhibits, are shown in the following table: Sl. No. Due date Amount in Rs. Paid on Amount in Rs. The date of payment, amounts of payment, the due date of payment and the period of delay as evident from those exhibits, are shown in the following table: Sl. No. Due date Amount in Rs. Paid on Amount in Rs. Period of Delay 1 26.03.1994 17,001/- 31.03.1994 17,171/- 5 Days 2 26.04.1994 16,800/- 29.04.1994 16,800/- 3 Days 3 26.05.1994 16,800/- 26.05.1994 16,800/- ------ 4 26.06.1994 16,800/- 24.08.1994 16,800/- 59 Days 5 26.07.1994 16,800/- 07.11.1994 16,800/- 72 Days 6 26.08.1994 16,800/- 10.12.1994 16,800/- 106 Days 7 26.09.1994 16,800/- 03.01.1995 18,486/- 99 Days 8 26.10.1994 16,800/- 28.01.1995 20,000/- 94 Days 9 26.11.1994 16,800/- 28.02.1995 20,000/- 94 Days 10 26.12.1994 16,800/- 29.04.1995 20,000/- 124 Days 11 26.01.1995 16,800/- 15.07.1995 20,000/- 170 Days 12 26.02.1995 16,800/- 28.07.1995 20,000/- 152 Days 13 26.03.1995 16,800/- 10.10.1995 17,000/- 198 Days 14 26.04.1995 16,800/- 03.11.1995 17,000/- 190 Days 15 26.05.1995 16,800/- 04.12.1995 15,000/- 192 Days 16 26.06.1995 16,800/- 17.01.1996 40,000/- 204 Days 17 26.07.1995 16,800/- 22.01.1996 50,000/- 179 Days 18 26.08.1995 16,800/- 27.01.1996 26,240/- 164 Days 19 26.09.1995 16,800/- ------ ------ ------ 20 26.10.1995 16,800/- ------ ------ ------ 21 26.11.1995 16,800/- ------ ------ ------ 22 26.12.1995 16,800/- ------ ------ ------ 24 26.01.1996 16,800/- ------ ------ ------ Because of the above delayed payments, the plaintiff under the terms and conditions of the agreement in Exbt.1 particularly conditions 5, 6 & 7 was required to pay a further sum of Rs. 34,458/- as overdue compensation (ODC) and as such plaintiff could not acquire right to transfer of ownership of the vehicle by the defendants in her favour unless she paid the said dues and the plaintiff admittedly having not paid the said ODC dues could not raise any claim based on alleged ownership of the vehicle but the learned Court below totally overlooked the fact of dues on account of ODC and arrived at erroneous and perverse findings.” 16. It has been also questioned whether if the said payment was not made, the decree declaring the plaintiff as the owner of the said vehicle could be made or not? It has been also questioned whether if the said payment was not made, the decree declaring the plaintiff as the owner of the said vehicle could be made or not? On the face of such challenge, by the order dated 28.03.2014, this Court formulated the following substantial question of law for hearing this appeal: “(i) Whether the finding of the trial court and the First Appellate Court that the plaintiff acquired ownership of the vehicle even without payment of the overdue compensation in violation of the terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties is tenable?” The leave was granted for raising any other substantial questions of law at the time of hearing. However, such endeavor has not been made by the appellant. 17. In the written statement of the appellant and the respondent No. 2, no such illustration as extracted above was given, though the claim was raised regarding overdue compensation to the tune of Rs. 34,453/-. Even no documentary evidence was adduced by the plaintiffs in respect of their claim. Moreover, the first appellate court has correctly observed that D.W-1, Sr. P.S. K. Nair, who represented the defendant No. 2 in the suit, has clearly admitted that “it is fact that up to 27th January, 1996, the plaintiff had paid the entire money under hire-purchase agreement”. However, he had also voluntarily stated that “the payments were made after stipulated period but he has also not proved how far the payment was delayed, nor did he introduce any documents in this regard. 18. For purpose of illustration, in the memorandum of appeal, they have given the calculation which can neither be treated as pleading or as the evidence. Even in the reply dated 24.01.2010 (Exhibit.8) the defendant No. 1 did not illustrate how the said amount of Rs. 34,445/- had accrued in the account of the plaintiff. Even no notice in this regard had been issued to the plaintiff. 19. Mr. A. K. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, the defendant No. 2 in the suit, has contended that the impugned judgment has failed to take care of the breach as committed by the plaintiff. To establish such plea, he has referred to the hire-purchase agreement (Exhibit-1) and the communication dated 22.02.1994 (Exhibit-2) submitted that for not paying the said amount of Rs. To establish such plea, he has referred to the hire-purchase agreement (Exhibit-1) and the communication dated 22.02.1994 (Exhibit-2) submitted that for not paying the said amount of Rs. 34,445/-, it cannot be said that the plaintiff had discharged the liability of the payment. 20. Mr. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel was confronted by this Court, on reference to Section 18 of the Hire-purchase Act, 1972, whether the defendant No. 1 as the owner, in terms of the definition provided in Section 2(f) of the Hire-purchase Act, 1972 had issued any notice in writing or not. Mr. Bhowmik, has candidly admitted that no such notice was issued by the defendant No. 1, the respondent No. 2 herein. According to Section 2(f) of the Hire-purchase Act, 1972, “the owner means the person who lets or has let, delivers or has delivered possession of goods, to a hirer under a hire-purchase agreement and includes a person to whom the owner’s rights or liabilities under the agreement has passed by assignment or by operation of law.” For purpose of termination, the law has mandated by Section 18 of the Hire-purchase Act, 1972 as follows: “18. Rights of owner to terminate hire-purchase agreement for default in payment of hire or unauthorised act or breach of express conditions. (1) Where a hirer makes more than one default in the payment of hire as provided in the hire-purchase agreement then, subject to the provisions of section 21 and after giving the hirer notice in writing of not less than. (i) one week, in a case where the hire is payable at weekly or lesser intervals; and (ii) two weeks, in any other case, the owner shall be entitled to terminate the agreement by giving the hirer notice of termination in writing: Provided that if the hirer pays or tenders to the owner the hire in arrears together with such interest thereon as may be payable under the terms of the agreement before the expiry of the said period of one week or, as the case may be, two weeks, the owner shall not be entitled to terminate the agreement. (2) Where a hirer- (a) does any act with regard to the goods to which the agreement relates which is inconsistent with any of the terms of the agreement; or (b) breaks an express condition which provides that, on the breach thereof, the owner may terminate the agreement, the owner shall subject to the provisions of section 22, be entitled to terminate the agreement by giving the hirer notice of termination in writing.” 21. It would be apposite to refer Section 19 of the Hire-purchase Act, 1972 which provides the rights on termination including the right to recover the arrears of hirer due etc. 22. Section 20 of the said Act has imposed restriction on owner’s right to recover possession of ‘the goods’ otherwise than through a court. It provides that where goods have been let under a hire-purchase agreement and the statutory proportion of the hire-purchase price has been paid, whether in pursuance of the judgment of a court or otherwise, or tendered by or on behalf of the hirer or any surety, the owner shall not enforce any right to recover possession of the goods from the hirer otherwise than in accordance with sub-section (3) or by the suit. 23. For purpose of explaining the statutory proportion, it has been provided that one-half, where the hire-purchase price is less than fifteen thousand rupees, three-fourths where the hire-purchase price is not less than fifteen thousand rupees. It has been further provided that in case of motor vehicles as defined in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (4 of 1939), “statutory proportion” shall mean one-half where the hire-purchase price is less than five thousand rupees, three-fourths where the hire-purchase price is not less than five thousand rupees but less than fifteen thousand rupees or such higher proportion not exceeding nine-tenths as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify, where the hire-purchase price is not less than fifteen thousand rupees. 24. It cannot be denied that the statutory proportion of the hire-purchase price has been paid but what exactly was being demanded by the owner was that of the interest for the delayed payments. From the statement of DW-1 it is apparent that the defendant did not file any certified account of payment or accrual of the interest thereof. The only evidence adduced by the defendants is of the oral testimony of DW-1. From the statement of DW-1 it is apparent that the defendant did not file any certified account of payment or accrual of the interest thereof. The only evidence adduced by the defendants is of the oral testimony of DW-1. DW-1 has categorically stated that on 27th January, 1996, the plaintiff had paid the entire money under hire-purchase agreement. 25. Mr. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel has further submitted that by returning the finding that the plaintiff has paid the entire liability under the hire-purchase agreement, both the courts below have appreciated the evidence perversely. Mr. Bhowmik, has submitted that since there was a due of Rs. 34,445/- and the plaintiff had failed to pay the said due, the dependants by taking the repossession of the vehicle, did not commit any illegality and for such legal possession, no damage can be awarded by the Court. 26. The overdue compensation (ODC) as calculated by the defendants is the legal due in terms of the Clause-5 of the hire-purchase agreement which provides as under: “Clause-5: The hirer agrees to pay the owners at the rate of two and half percent per mensem compensation on overdue hire payment as provided Clause-III of the Agreement and also on other sums including taxes, fees, repairs and supplies which may be due from the hirer to the owners in respect of the vehicle. But this provision shall not in any way affect or prejudice the right of the owners as provided herein to recover possession of vehicle and to determine this agreement on default of payment on any of hire payments. The hirer further agrees to the owners appropriating any money received from the hirer first against the said interest on the overdue monthly hire payments or against any other claim of the owners on the hirer either under this agreement or under any other agreements or against any other liability of the hirer whether in his capacity as hirer or any way otherwise towards the owners, and then against the overdue hire payments under this agreement.” According to him, the said amount of Rs. 34,445/- is accurately calculated as the overdue compensation (ODC) and for non-payment of the ODC, the defendants had repossessed the vehicle. 27. Mr. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel has further submitted that the assessment of the damage is not supported by any cogent evidence. From the other side, Mr. 34,445/- is accurately calculated as the overdue compensation (ODC) and for non-payment of the ODC, the defendants had repossessed the vehicle. 27. Mr. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel has further submitted that the assessment of the damage is not supported by any cogent evidence. From the other side, Mr. R. R. Data, learned counsel has appeared for the plaintiff whereas Mr. S. Pandit, learned counsel has appeared for the Tata Motors Ltd., the renamed entity of the Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. 28. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel has submitted that there is no evidence of any due under Cluse-5 of the agreement. The defendants never raised such claim against the plaintiff. On the contrary it has been clearly stated by DW-1 that on 27th January, 1996, when the last payment was made, there was no due in the account of the plaintiff. 29. Having situated thus, the two pertinent points that fall for consideration of this Court are as under: (i) Whether there is any evidence for overdue compensation against the plaintiff; and (ii) Whether the compensation as assessed by the courts below are tenable in law or not? On scrutiny of the records, this Court has safely come to the conclusion that the defendants failed to produce any piece of paper demanding any overdue compensation to the plaintiff at any point of time. 30. That apart, DW-1 has clearly made the statement that when the last instalment was paid by the plaintiff on 27.01.1996, there was no due in her account under the said hire-purchase agreement. Therefore, there is no difficulty in holding that there was no due in the account of the plaintiff. 31. True it is that the plaintiff issued one letter dated 16.11.2000 (Exhibit-5) admitting that she would pay the due but the vehicle should be released. It is evident that under a stressful circumstance, the said letter was written and such communication on the face of it cannot be treated as an admission made voluntarily accepting the claim of the defendants. 32. In respect of what has been formulated in the point No. 2 above, this Court is of the considered view that the plaintiff initially raised a claim of Rs. 1,000/- per day from 07.11.2000 till the date of the release of the vehicle, with a further sum of Rs. 1,00000/- for harassment and mental agony. 32. In respect of what has been formulated in the point No. 2 above, this Court is of the considered view that the plaintiff initially raised a claim of Rs. 1,000/- per day from 07.11.2000 till the date of the release of the vehicle, with a further sum of Rs. 1,00000/- for harassment and mental agony. But in the plaint she has revised such claim in the manner as quoted above. In the plaint the demand has been asserted and rationalized. The trial court has on the basis of the evidence made assessment and observed that the plaintiff is entitled to a sum of Rs. 4,89,597/- with interest @11% per annum, after clearly holding that the repossession was entirely illegal. 33. The finding as regards discharging of the liability under the said hire-purchase agreement cannot be faulted with for the discussion as made above inasmuch as the defendants did not adduce any evidence as accrued of the overdue compensation in terms of Clause-5 of the hire-purchase agreement or in respect of their demand to the plaintiff. On the contrary, DW-1 has clearly stated that on 27.01.1996 the plaintiff had no due on her account as regards the hire-purchase agreement. Thus, the said finding and the consequential declaration of the ownership of the vehicle in favour of the plaintiff are affirmed. So far the assessment of the compensation is concerned, this court does not find any gross infirmity warranting interference vis-à-vis the concurrent finding of the fact. 34. The appellants and the respondent No. 2 are directed to make the payment of the decreetal amount within a period of 2 months from today. In the event of failure of making such payment, the plaintiff would be at liberty to execute the decree in accordance with law. The orders dated 11.12.2013 and 16.12.2014 passed in C.M. Application No. 133 of 2013 arising from this appeal, stand vacated. 35. In the event of failure of making such payment, the plaintiff would be at liberty to execute the decree in accordance with law. The orders dated 11.12.2013 and 16.12.2014 passed in C.M. Application No. 133 of 2013 arising from this appeal, stand vacated. 35. In this context a decision of the Apex Court in M/s. Damodar Valley Corporation v. State of Bihar, reported in AIR 1961 SC 440 , may be referred to, as it has been held therein as under: “.....mere contract of hiring, without more, is a species of the contract of bailment, which does not create a title in the bailee, but the law of hire-purchase has undergone considerable development during the last half a century or more and has introduced a number of variations, thus leading to categories, and it becomes a question of some niceties as to which category a particular contract between the parties comes under. Ordinarily, a contract of hire-purchase confers no title on the hirer, but a mere option to purchase on fulfillment of certain conditions. But a contract of hire-purchase may also provide for the agreement to purchase the thing hired by deferred payments subject to the condition that title to the thing shall not pass until all the installments have been paid.” 36. In this case Clause-7 of the hire-purchase agreement since comes in conflicts with the provision of Section 18 of the Hire-purchase Act, 1972, the statutory provision would prevail. Since it has been proved or since the defendants have failed to prove their claim, the courts below have righty come to the conclusion that the plaintiff had discharged the liability of the payment and as such, the plaintiff is competent to be declared as the owner of the said vehicle. Having held so, the challenge against the impugned judgment does not survive and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Prepare the decree accordingly. Send down the LCRs thereafter.