Citicorp.Maruti Finance Ltd vs S.Vijayalaxmi

The Supreme Court upheld the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission's decision, affirming that the appellant was justified in taking possession of the vehicle due to the respondent's failure to adhere to the Hire-Purchase Agreement terms, specifically regarding timely payment of hire charges as mandated by Clause 2.1. The Court noted that the dishonor of 26 cheques and the respondent's default in payment constituted a breach of contract, allowing the appellant to reclaim the vehicle. The Court dismissed the appeal, reinforcing the enforceability of contractual obligations under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.