Madras High Court
T.K.S.Udhumaan Kani vs Regional Transport Officer on 12 December, 2018
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 12.12.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
W.P(MD)No.16431 of 2017
T.K.S.Udhumaan Kani .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.Regional Transport Officer,
Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
2.Regional Manager,
Shriram City Union Finance Ltd.,
5C/5A, 1st Floor, Sumangali Commercial Complex,
Thiruvanandhapuram Road,
Vannarapettai, Tirunelveli District.
3.J.Anandha Sironmani
[Third respondent is impleaded vide
order dated 12.11.2018 made in
W.M.P(MD)No.20490 of 2018] .. Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the
respondents to transfer the ownership of the vehicle namely Maxi
Cab bearing Registration No.TN-74-AF-9137 in the petitioner's name
based on the petitioner's representation dated 14.07.2017 and pass
such further or other orders.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Muthuvelan
for Mr.B.Muneeswaran
For Respondent No.1 : Mr.Aayiram K.Selvakumar,
Additional Government Pleader.
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
For Respondent No.3 : Mr.S.Sureshkumar
ORDER
The subject matter of this writ petition is a Maxi Cab Car bearing Registration No.TN-74-AF-9137. The said Maxi Cab car was originally purchased by the third respondent herein availing financial assistance granted by the second respondent. The third respondent entered into a hypothecation agreement with the second respondent. It appears that the third respondent committed default. Invoking the power conferred by the contractual terms and conditions, the second respondent seized the vehicle from the custody of the third respondent. It is seen from the materials enclosed in the typed-set of papers, the second respondent put the third respondent on notice calling upon the third respondent to pay the arrears. Since there was no response from the third respondent, the second respondent held a public auction and in the said public auction, the petitioner herein purchased the seized vehicle.
2.Thereafter, the petitioner approached the first respondent for transferring the ownership of the vehicle in his favour by making necessary changes in the R.C. Book. The first http://www.judis.nic.in 3 respondent heard the writ petitioner and third respondent and relegated them to go before the Civil Court. The third respondent therefore filed O.S.No.165 of of 2017 on the file of the First Additional Sub Court, Nagercoil. The said suit is pending. Admittedly, no interim order has been granted by the Civil Court in the said civil suit. Thereafter the petitioner requested the first respondent to make the changes. The first respondent had already taken a stand in the matter. Therefore, the first respondent did not act further in the matter. Hence, this writ petition came to be instituted.
3.Technically speaking, the writ petitioner should have challenged the communication dated 03.04.2018. It has not been done so, instead he chose to couch the writ prayer in the form of writ of mandamus. But, I am of the view that this Court should not go by technical considerations. This Court is here to render substantial justice.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner drew my attention to Section 51(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The said provision reads as under:
http://www.judis.nic.in 4 “51.Special Provisions regarding motor vehicle subject to hire-purchase agreement, etc. - (5)Where the person whose name has been specified in the certificate of registration as the person with whom the registered owner has entered into the said agreement, satisfies the registering authority that he has taken possession of the vehicle from the registered owner owing to the default of the registered owner under the provisions of the said agreement and that the registered owner refuses to deliver the certificate of registration or has absconded, such authority may, after giving the registered owner an opportunity to make such representation as he may wish to make (by sending to him a notice by registered post acknowledgement due at his address entered in the certificate of registration) and notwithstanding that the certificate of registration is not produced before it, cancel the certificate and issue a fresh certificate of registration in the name of the person with whom the registered owner has entered into the said agreement.
Provided that a fresh certificate of registration shall not be issued in respect of a motor vehicle, unless such person pays the prescribed fee.
Provided further that a fresh certificate of registration issued in respect of a motor vehicle, other than a transport vehicle, shall be valid only for the remaining period for which the certificate cancelled under this sub- section would have been in force”.
http://www.judis.nic.in 5
5.The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner also drew my attention to the decision of the Madras High Court in Sundaram Finance Limited v. The Regional Transport Authority reported in (1993)2 MLJ 586.
6.In the present case, it is not in dispute that the vehicle in question was the subject matter of an agreement between the third respondent and second respondent. The second respondent had been conferred with certain contractual powers. Exercising those powers, the second respondent chose to seize the vehicle. The specific case of the second respondent is that the third respondent committed default. Thereafter, the second respondent conducted the public auction. In the public auction, the writ petitioner herein purchased the vehicle. The writ petitioner appears to be a bona- fide purchaser for adequate consideration. Therefore, in these circumstances, the first respondent erred in declining to transfer the ownership of the vehicle in favour of the writ petitioner. The first respondent did not take note of the mandatory provision set out in Section 51(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Therefore, applying the statutory mandate set out in the said provision and specifically following the dictum laid down in Sundaram Finance Limited v. The Regional Transport Authority reported in (1993)2 MLJ 586, http://www.judis.nic.in 6 I direct the first respondent to transfer the ownership of the vehicle in question in the name of the petitioner. The writ petition stands allowed. However, it is clarified that this would be subject to the outcome of O.S.No.165 of 2017 on the file of First Additional Sub Court, Nagercoil. No costs.
12.12.2018
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
smn
To
The Regional Transport Officer,
Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
http://www.judis.nic.in
7
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
smn
ORDER MADE IN
W.P(MD)No.16431 of 2017
12.12.2018
http://www.judis.nic.in