Kerala High Court
Daimler Financial Services India ... vs The Regional Transport Officer on 12 June, 2017
Author: Shaji P.Chaly
Bench: Shaji P.Chaly
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017/23RD BHADRA, 1939
WP(C).No. 28374 of 2017 (V)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-----------------------
DAIMLER FINANCIAL SERVICES INDIA PVT.LTD.
MRA 61-A7 MANAKKAPARAMBU ROAD, EDAPPALLY PO,
ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682024.
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY,
AHAMMED RAFI B.K.
BY ADVS.SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN
SRI.K.K.AKHIL
RESPONDENT(S):
------------------------------
1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER
ERNAKULAM, KAKKANAD, PIN-682030.
2. KRISHNAPRASAD C.R.
CHANGARAM KUMARATH HOUSE, CHELAKKARA,
THONNURKKARA PO, THRISSUR-680 586.
BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.C.S.SHEEJA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14-09-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 28374 of 2017 (V)
----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
------------------------------------
EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE TEMPORARY REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE
BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KL 39J TEMP 7950.
EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE FORM NO.21 RELATING TO THE VEHICLE.
EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE FORM NO.22 RELATING TO THE VEHICLE.
EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE FORMAL REQUEST FOR REGISTRATION DATED
12-6-2017.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL
------------------------------------
//TRUE COPY//
P.A.TO JUDGE
dlk
SHAJI P. CHALY, J.
----------------
W.P.(C) No. 28374 of 2017
--------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of September, 2017
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is the financier in respect of a car bearing registration No. KL 39 J-TEMP 7950, which was purchased by the second respondent on 2.2.2016. It is alleged that, the second respondent failed to repay the loan and also failed to take permanent registration, consequent to which the vehicle was re- possessed and the petitioner intends to permanently register the repossessed vehicle in its name. However, according to the petitioner, first respondent is not entertaining the request stating that the documents required for registration are not originals. These are the background facts available before this Court in order to consider the relief sought for by the petitioner.
2. In view of the limited nature of order I propose to pass, notice to the second respondent is dispensed with.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned senior Government Pleader and perused the pleadings and documents on record.
W.P.(C) No. 28374 of 2017 2
4. The fact issue stated above is covered under Section 51(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The authority under the Act is duty bound to entertain an application and ascertain whether the petitioner is satisfying with the requirements contained under sub-section 5 of Section 51 of the Act, 1988 and the petitioner is able to convince the statutory authority then necessary will have to be done in accordance with the aforesaid provision. That being the situation, there will be a direction to the first respondent to accept the statutory application if offered by the petitioner within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and attain finality to the same, after providing notice of hearing to the petitioner as well the second respondent within a month thereafter.
5. I also make it clear that if the first respondent is of the opinion that any other statutory authority is vested with powers to do so in view of the temporary registration made, the first respondent will be at liberty to transmit the record so and do the necessary. If such a course is adopted by the first respondent, then such authority will be liable to comply with the directions contained above.
W.P.(C) No. 28374 of 2017 3
6. While considering the application as directed, the proposition of law laid down by this Court in WP(C) No.4554/2011 dated 21.7.2011 shall be taken into account. Petitioner is also directed to produce a certified copy of the judgment before the statutory authority.
Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE dlk/14/9/