The court directed the Regional Transport Officer to issue a notice to the owner of the vehicle, hear objections if any, and consider the application for a fresh Registration Certificate within six weeks.
Direction to the RTO to issue notice to the second respondent and consider the application for fresh RC within six weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1943
WP(C).No.4463 OF 2021(G)
PETITIONER/S:
TATA MOTORS FINANCE LIMITED 3RD FLOOR, JOSH ENTRE, INFO PARK ROAD, KUSUMAGIRI P.O. COCHIN 682 030, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY SAINS MATHEW, S/O. MATHEW, AGED 45 YEARS, LEGAL HEAD, TATA MOTORS FINANCE LIMITED, 3RD FLOOR JOSH CENTRE, INFO PARK ROAD, KUSUMAGIRI P.O. COCHIN 682 030.
BY ADV. SHRI.DOMSON J.VATTAKUZHY
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, IDUKKI, 685 603.
2 ARUN E.R, S/O. RAMAKRISHNAN, ERAPPULLAMKATTIL HOUSE, PULIYANMALA P.O. KATTAPPANA, IDUKKI DISTRICT 685 515.
SR.GP K.P HARISH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.04.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.4463 OF 2021(G)
2
JUDGMENT
The second respondent availed loan from the petitioner for purchasing a commercial vehicle KL-6G1874. According to the petitioner, second respondent committed default for repayment and hence by due process of law, the vehicle was repossessed on 17.03.2020. The petitioner submitted Ext.P1 application before the first respondent for issuing fresh RC. It was rejected by Ext.P2 proceedings dated 14.12.2020. The reason stated therein was that the order of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Form, Idukki in CC.No.404 of 2014 was not complied with, and an objection was raised by the owner. In the above circumstances, the application for change of RC would be considered only after compliance of Ext.P3 order, it was held. Aggrieved by that, the petitioner has approached this court. Though R2 was served in this proceedings he remained exparte.
WP(C).No.4463 OF 2021(G)
3
from the records of the petitioner as to whether they have complied with the order of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Form. In the light of above, I am inclined to direct the RTO, to issue notice to the second respondent and after hearing in the objectors, if any, consider the application for fresh RC in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of service of notice.
Writ Petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE
R.AV
WP(C).No.4463 OF 2021(G)
4
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 24.08.2020.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 14.12.2020 REGARDING TH REJECTION OF APPLICATION. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CC 404/2014 DATED 26.12.2019.
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS NIL
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Regional Transport Officer should issue a notice to the second respondent and consider the application for a fresh Registration Certificate within six weeks.
Whether compliance with the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum order needs to be verified before issuing a notice.
TATA MOTORS FINANCE LIMITED
THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, IDUKKI
ARUN E.R
SUNIL THOMAS
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
