Allowed

K.M.Chacko v. the Joint Regional Transport Officer

Kerala HC2 Nov 2020WP(C)/14039/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Respondents to accept the Petitioner's application for transfer of registration of a Goods Carriage vehicle. Despite objections and pendency of a separate suit, the Court held that failure to consider the transfer violates statutory obligations, leaving ownership disputes to the appropriate civil forum.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 1st Respondent to accept the application for registration transfer and effect the transfer in terms of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

K.M.Chacko Vs the Joint Regional Transport Officer — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

MONDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 11TH KARTHIKA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.14039 OF 2020(D)

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

K.M.CHACKO, AGED 69 YEARS, S/O. MATHEW, KURISHUMOOTTIL HOUSE, AYYAPPANCOVIL MATTUKATTA, NEDUMKANDAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT 685 553.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.K.K.AKHIL

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, IDUKKI 685 508.

¶11

2 BENNICHAN IMMANUAL, KAIPPAN PLACKAL, VELLAYAMKUDI, IDUKKI DISTRICT 685 602.

¶12

R1 BY SRI K P HARISH, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER R2 BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C).No.14039 OF 2020

¶15

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

The petitioner states that he is the registered owner of a HGV Goods Carriage vehicle bearing Reg. No. KL-06-G-1873. Ext.P1 is the registration certificate carrying his name and Ext.P2 is the Insurance Policy certificate. He contends that the original records of the vehicle were stolen sometime in the year 2019 by the 2nd respondent which led to the lodging of a complaint before the police. Later, the petitioner applied for a duplicate copy of the registration certificate and the same was issued by the 1st respondent after complying with all statutory formalities. The Insurance policy was later renewed and the petitioner is possessing the vehicle. While so, on 23.6.2020, the petitioner sold the vehicle to a certain Shihab. He thereafter filed an application before the 1st respondent seeking to change the registration of the vehicle to the name of the purchaser. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 1st respondent is not considering the application for transfer of registration on the ground that the 2nd respondent has raised an objection to the same. According to the petitioner, owing to the failure of the 1st respondent to transfer the vehicle, the vehicle is kept idle. He would contend that the 1st respondent is dutybound to consider the application in the light of Section 50 of the Act. It is

¶18

WP(C).No.14039 OF 2020

¶19

¶20

in the said circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court seeking directions.

¶21

The learned Government pleader has filed a counter, wherein it is stated that though the vehicle stands registered in the name of the petitioner, the registration was granted on the temporary address furnished by the petitioner as the Proprietor of Divine Gas Agencies, Kattappana. It is further contended that the 2nd respondent had filed objections stating that he has instituted W.P.(C) No . 11144 of 2020 and the same is pending before this Court and until orders are passed in the said writ petition, the registration shall not be transferred. It is further submitted that no steps could be taken as the respondents were not in a position to ascertain the correctness of the address furnished by the petitioner.

¶22

The 2nd respondent has filed a counter stating that though the registration of the vehicle is in the name of the petitioner, the vehicle is actually owned by Divine Gas Agency. According to the 2nd respondent, the petitioner was never a partner of Divine Gas Agency. He would further contend that there are disputes between the partners of the firm Divine Gas Agency and a suit is pending before the Munsiff Court, Kattappana. It is further submitted that the writ petition which is pending before this Court was filed for cancelling the order of suspension and also for permitting to continue the gas distributorship. It is further stated that the petitioner was

¶23

WP(C).No.14039 OF 2020

¶24

¶25

actually employed in the gas agency and it was for ease of availing a loan that the vehicle was purchased in the name of the petitioner. According to the 2nd respondent, the vehicle was purchased by availing a loan from Magma Fin Corp. Ltd. and the EMIs were being paid by Divine Gas Agency. The petitioner has committed theft of vehicle and it was pursuant to the same he had obtained possession and stating all these aspects, a petition has been filed before the 1st respondent. According to the respondent, none of the reliefs sought for by the petitioner can be granted.

¶26

I have considered the submissions advanced.

¶27

Ext.P1 is the copy of the certificate of registration issued in

¶28

respect of vehicle bearing Reg. No. KL-06-G-1873. From Ext.P1 it is evident that the vehicle stands registered in the name of the petitioner herein. Ext.P2 is the certificate of insurance which has been issued to the petitioner. It is, of course, true that the temporary address shown in Ext.P1 is that of the Proprietor, Divine Gas Agency. Admittedly, the entire papers are in the name of the petitioner and the vehicle also is in his possession. This fact is acknowledged by the respondents as well. Under Section 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as and when the transfer of vehicle is reported in such form as prescribed by the Government, the registering authority is bound to transfer the ownership in the certificate of registration. In the case on hand, based on an objection filed by the 2nd

¶29

WP(C).No.14039 OF 2020

¶30

¶31

respondent, the 1st respondent has refused to even take up the application. I am of the view that the same cannot be countenanced. From the counter filed by the 2nd respondent, it appears that the writ petition which is pending before this Court has been instituted for cancelling the order of suspension and also for permitting to continue the distributorship of the Indian Oil Corporation. The mere pendency of the writ petition may not be a ground to refuse transfer of registration.

¶32

In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to accept the application for registration of the vehicle bearing Reg. No. KL-06-G-1873 and take all steps to effect transfer of registration in terms of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. If there is any dispute as to the correctness of address, the 1st respondent may resort to the proviso to Rule 4(12) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and may insist upon the petitioner to swear an affidavit. If the 2nd respondent has any rightful claim over the vehicle, he may approach the appropriate forum and seek relief and such remedies are left open.

¶33

SD/-

¶34

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶35

JUDGE

¶36

sru

¶37

WP(C).No.14039 OF 2020

¶38

¶39

APPENDIX

¶40

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶41

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE VEHICLE BERING REGISTRATION NO KL-06-G-1873.

¶42

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE INSURANCE POLICY CERTIFICATE, DATED 5/6/2020.

¶43

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶44

EXHIBIT R2A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA NO.1155/2019 IN OS NO. 287/2019 DATED 18.12.2019 MUNSIFF COURT, KATTAPPANA EXHIBIT R2 B TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE NO. KL-06-G-1873 SHOWING THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE GAS AGENCY. EXHIBIT R2 C TRUE COPY OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED DATED 20.08.2014 BETWEEN JAMES MATHAI AND ANEESH JOSEPH EXHIBIT R2 D TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT FOR HAVING RECEIVED THE COMPLAINT AND WITH THE COMPLAINT BEFORE THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR, KATTAPPANA DATED 14.06.2020 EXHIBIT R2 E TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT BEFORE THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER DATED 19.06.2020

¶45

//TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE

K.M.Chacko v. the Joint Regional Transport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.M.Chacko v. the Joint Regional Transport Officer

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

Biju.G, Vs Anchal Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. No 2574

Murukan Vs State of Kerala

Bindu Mathew Vs Assistant Registrar (General) of Co. Operative Societies

V.Vinayachandran Vs the Registrar of Cooperative Societies

Chelsia Theresa George Vs the Government of Kerala

Maria Construction Needs Vs the Village Officer