Allowed

Rosamma v. Jt.R.T.O,Pala

Kerala HC17 Jul 2012WP(C)/2058/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Ernakulam held that a petitioner entitled to a No Objection Certificate to remove a hypothecation endorsement after paying off dues via a civil court decree. It directed the Regional Transport Officer to process the application within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the first respondent to consider the application and pass necessary orders to remove the hypothecation endorsement within four weeks.

Rosamma Vs Jt.R.T.O,Pala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JULY 2012/26TH ASHADHA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 2058 of 2012 (F)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

ROSAMMA, AGED 62 YEARS W/O.JOSEPH,AGED 62 YEARS,KALLOLICKAL HOUSE KIZHUTHADIYOOR,CHETTIMATTOM P.O,LLALAM VILLAGE PALA,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.C.J.JOY

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

JT.REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, PALA,PALA P.O,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT 686575

¶10

ASHOK LEYLAND FINANCE LTD' 86,CHAMIAR ROAD CHENNAI 600 018 REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶11

THE BRANCH MANAGER ASHOK LEYLAND FINANCE LTD. TRICHUR - 680 001

¶12

ADDL.R4: INDUS IND BANK LTD. KOTTAYAM BRANCH (REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER) REGENCY SQUARE BLDG., OPPOSITE COLLECTORATE KOTTAYAM - 686 002 (IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT.16.3.2012 IN I.A.4166/2012) BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN BY ADV. SRI.PRAVEEN.H. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI.P.P.PADMALAYAN

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-07-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

APPENDIX

¶15

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶16

EXT.P1 TRUE OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE REGISTRATION BOOK OF KL-5F 5028 AMBASSADOR CAR. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 6/2/2003 IN O.S. NO.29/2002 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT,ETTUMANOOR PASSED AGAINST RESPONDENTS 2 & 3 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE DATED 6/2/2003 IN O.S. NO.29/2002 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT,ETTUMANOOR PASSED AGAINST RESPONDENTS 2 & 3 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10/3/2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO RESPONDENTS 2 & 3 EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 24/6/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶17

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO JUDGE

K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J.

¶22

W.P(C) NO: 2058 OF 2012

¶23

----------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 17^th July, 2012.

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

The petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction of the first respondent on Ext.P5 application. The petitioner is the registered owner of an Ambassador car bearing registration No: KL-5/F-5028. The vehicle was subject to hypothecation with the second respondent. The petitioner has paid off the entire amount due as per the hypothecation agreement. She had filed O.S.29/2002 before the Munsiff's Court, Ettumanoor praying for a decree directing refund of excess amount collected from her by respondents 2 and 3. The said suit has been decreed on 6-2-2003. The judgment and decree thereof are Exts.P2 and P3. It is clear from Exts.P2 and P3 that no amounts are due to respondents 2 and 3 from the petitioner. On the contrary amounts are due from respondents 2 and 3 to the petitioner. The additional fourth respondent has taken over the assets of respondents 2 and 3. Therefore, it is contended that the additional fourth respondent is liable to issue a No Objection Certificate in favour of the petitioner.

¶26

Adv.G.Hariharan appears for the additional fourth

¶27

WPC 2058/2012 2

¶28

respondent. According to the counsel, the fourth respondent does not have any records relating to the hypothecation agreement executed between the petitioner and the second respondent. For the above reason, the fourth respondent is not in a position to state whether any amounts are in fact due or payable by the petitioner to the said company. It is for the said reason that they have not issued the necessary certificate for removing the endorsement regarding the hypothecation from the registration certificate of the petitioner.

¶29

Having heard the counsel for the contesting parties, I am satisfied that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. Section 51(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the 'Act' for short) reads as follows:-

¶30

“Any entry made under sub-section (1) or subsection (2), may be cancelled by the last registering authority on proof of the termination of the said agreement by the parties concerned on an application being made in such form as the Central Government may prescribe and an intimation in this behalf shall be sent to the original registering authority if the last registering authority is not the original registering authority.”

¶31

WPC 2058/2012 3

¶32

The requirement of the above provision is that the Registering Authority should have proof of termination of the said agreement between the parties. Exts.P3 and P4 judgment and decree of the competent civil court shows that no amounts are due to the additional fourth respondent from the petitioner. On the contrary, Exts.P3 and P4 prove that excess amounts have been paid to the financier by the petitioner under the hire purchase agreement. Therefore, the Court has ordered refund of the said amount. In the above circumstances, the requirement of the above provision has been satisfied and the refusal of the additional fourth respondent to issue a No Objection Certificate or other such communication agreeing to cancellation of the endorsement regarding the hire purchase agreement is unnecessary. The procedure that should be followed by the Registering Authority in such circumstances has been provided in Section 51(11) and (12) of the Act, which read as follows:-

¶33

“(11) A registering authority registering the new vehicle, or issuing the duplicate certificate of registration or a no objection certificate or a temporary certificate of registration, or issuing or renewing, a fitness certificate or substituting entries relating to another motor vehicle in the permit, shall intimate the financier of such

WPC 2058/2012

transaction.

(12) The registering authority where it is not the original registering authority, when making entry under subsection (1) or sub-section (2), or cancelling the said entry under sub-section (3) or issuing the fresh certificate of registration under sub-section (5) shall communicate the same to the original registering authority.”

¶38

Therefore, it is incumbent upon the Registering Authority, the first respondent herein to pass necessary orders on Ext.P5 application submitted by the petitioner, invoking the powers under the above provisions.

¶39

This writ petition is for the above reasons disposed of directing the first respondent to consider Ext.P5 application submitted by the petitioner and to pass necessary orders thereon, in accordance with the above provisions. Appropriate orders as indicated above shall be issued as expeditiously as possible and at

¶40

any rate within a period of four weeks of the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶41

Sd/K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge

¶42

jj /True copy/

¶43

P.S.to Judge

¶44

WPC 2058/2012 5

Rosamma v. Jt.R.T.O,Pala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rosamma v. Jt.R.T.O,Pala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

President, Karikkamancode Service Co-Op. Vs Jt. Registrar of Co-Op. Societies

Gopal P. Prasad Vs the Controlling Authority

Venugopalan.P. Vs the Joint Registrar of Co-Op.Societies

Valsa Babu Vs Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal

Ezhvathuruthy Kayar Vyavasaya Sahakarana Sangam Vs the State of Kerala

P.a.Jose Vs Secy.R.T.a,Thrissur