It is the supporting affidavit averment that the petitioner
who purchased the vehicle under hire purchase agreement in view
of the seizure lost his livelihood and when the vehicle was seized
on 29.01.2016 while plying by the driver, he came to know later
about the seizure and the seizure is from non-production of the
papers relating to the vehicle in the course of surprise check and
the driver did not inform and left the job. Later he approached for
the release of the vehicle and ready to pay whatever the amount
due and payable for release of the vehicle saying the vehicle is kept
idle from 29.01.2016 and it is in deteriorating condition and the
continuation of the vehicle in custody further lost its utility.

Source: AP HC judgements

News Reporter

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: