Kerala High Court
Jayaprakash V., S/O. Narayanan Nair vs The Registering Authority, Office Of ... on 28 November, 2002
Author: M. Ramachandran
Bench: M. Ramachandran
JUDGMENT M. Ramachandran, J.
1. In response to a paper notification inviting tenders for purchase of a vehicle, issued by the 4th respondent-M/s. Tata Finance Limited--the petitioner had submitted his tender for purchase of a Tata Sumo vehicle for a sum of Rs. 1,61,000/-. It had been accepted and the vehicle had been allotted to the petitioner. But delivery was not given to him, since the registration number allotted to the vehicle as KL-11/G.3767 had been declared as obtained by forgery, by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kozhikode. The application filed by the petitioner for registration of the vehicle in his favour, cancelling the original registration, was refused by the Motor Vehicles Inspector, Ottappalam for non-compliance of Rule 47 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. The application should have accompanied by an application for registration in Form No. 20, sale certificate in Form No. 21, valid insurance certificate, road worthiness certificate in Form No. 22 and a number of documents. The Sale Certificate produced by the petitioner showed the sale in favour of Sri. V.P. Abdul Azeez, S/o. Imbichi Mohammed, Kunnoth House, Villiappally.P.O., Vadakara. The Chassis number of the vehicle is 385 013 KSQ 945671 and Engine number of 483 DL 41 KSQ 8120137. The application was rejected by the Motor Vehicle Inspector, Ottappalam on the following reasons:
"The prime important document necessary for registration of a vehicle is sale letter received from the dealer who delivered this vehicle (under Rule 47 of CMV Rules, 1989). Produced sale letter is the copy of the sale letter issued to Sri. V.P. Abdul Azeez on 4-12-97 with finance by M/s. Tata Finance Ltd., Cherootty Road, Calicut. With this sale letter this vehicle cannot register in your name as you applied in Form 20.
As per the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kozhikode, vide No. CMP 212/2001, M/s. Tata Finance permitted to sell the vehicle in question for maximum attractive price. But there is no evidence for sale of this vehicle to this applicant by M/s. Tata Finance Ltd. to effect a registration under Rule 47 of CMV Rules or provisions of Rule 57 of CMV Rules.
Hence your application is refused for non-compliance of Rule 47 of CMV Rules 1989, and directed to resubmit the application complying requirements contemplated by the above Rule."
Though it might have been possible for the petitioner to take up the matter in appeal, in view of the intrinsic difficult circumstances involved he has opted to file this Original Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. From the averments in the Original Petition as also the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent the following facts have come to light.
2. Sri. V.P. Abdul Azeez, showing his address as Vattamparakkal House, Chooramvayal.P.O., Kunnamangalam had approached the 4th respondent for getting hire purchase facility for purchase of one Tata Sum Delux vehicle and he had remitted the initial amount. The dealer of the vehicle is M/s. Sakthi Automobiles. A proforma invoice had been issued by the dealer in favour of M/s. Tata Finance on 26-11-1997. The dealer delivered the vehicle to Mr. Abdul Azeez. The invoice showed Tata Finance as the purchaser and Sr. Azeez as the hirer. A temporary registration certificate was given to Mr. Azeez by the registering authority. Thereafter, evidently Sri. Azeez had played foul and apparently using forged printed invoice he had got the vehicle registered in his address shown as Kunnoth House, Villiappally, Vadagara without entering the name of the hire purchaser. He obtained a registration for the vehicle from the Regional Transport Authority, Vadakara and got the vehicle registered as KL-11/G.3767.
3. One Mohammed Sadath, S/o. Mammoo Haji had thereafter purchased the vehicle from Sri. Azeez and such transfer had been got endorsed in the Registration Certificate. He had entered not a hire purchase agreement with another financier. For servicing the vehicle, it had been entrusted with M/s. Sakthi Automobiles. By that time all were alerted about the nefarious transactions at the hands of Sri. Azeez. Finding that the vehicle had come to them Sakthi Automobiles refused to part with it. Mr. Mohammed Sadath had therefore approached the criminal court for release of the vehicle and the 4th respondent also had filed an application for similar relief. By a common order (Ext. P1) by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kozhikode finding that there was fraud played by Azeez, including forgery, the vehicle was directed to be handed over to the owner as per the original records viz., M/s. Tata Finance.
4. It appears that the crime registered ultimately was referred on the ground of mistake of facts and the proceedings had come to a close before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. We are not expected to go to such details, though a day light robbery has gone unnoticed. Thereafter, on 27-09-2001, on an application filed by M/s. Tata Finance, the Chief Judicial Magistrate had permitted the Tata Finance to sell the vehicle in question. It was on the above basis that the paper notification had come and the petitioner became remitted the money towards purchase price.
5. As pointed out earlier, his efforts to get the vehicle registered in his name has not met with any success, since the rules prescribes that an application for registration has to be filed by the purchaser. Since as per the original records Sri. Azeez is recorded as the purchaser and no application has come from him for registration of the vehicle, the petitioner has come to face with difficulties as come out from Ext.P7.
6. Of course, the respondents might be justified in insisting that under Rule 47 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules sale certificate has to come from the purchaser. But it is highly improbable that after the nefarious transactions Mr. Azeez may come up owning the transaction. He stands to lose nothing. The impasse has to be solved at some point of time.
7. Even though Mr. Azeez had been described as the purchaser, Ext.R4 series indicate that legally Tata Finance was always the owner of the vehicle that had been delivered in the name of Azeez. The existence of the hire purchase agreement as between Abdul Azeez and Tata Finance is undisputed and in the light of Exts.P1 and P2 orders of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, this position stands confirmed. Therefore, it has to be presumed that Sakthi Automobiles although had delivered the vehicle in the name of Sri. V.P. Abdul Azeez, it was in fact sold to Tata Finance Limited alone (see Ext.R4 (c) invoice-cum-delivery receipt. Tata Finance Limited is deemed as the owner of the vehicle and permission alone is there given to Azeez to hire the vehicle. That he made certain transactions, will not in any way militate against the possession and ownership of Tata Finance about the vehicle in question. They had expended the money. When there is a definite finding that the registration had been obtained showing a fake address and showing fake sale letter and it has been declared as a result of fraud, it necessarily follows that the connected proceedings were null and void. It should therefore be presumed that the vehicle had never been registered validly, as already held by the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
8. If we go on technicalities, the result will be that even the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, in valid proceedings, are rendered ineffective. This cannot also be permitted. Therefore it has to be adjudged that the Tata Finance were always the owner of the vehicle concerned and since they have sold it in favour of the petitioner, on the authorization of Ext.P2 order, this has to be treated as a valid sale of a movable article. If the petitioner produces the sale letter issued by the Tata Finance in his favour and produces Ext.R4(c) and other certificates required under Rule 47 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, I direct that the vehicle is to be registered in his name. Unfortunately the notice issued to Sakthi Automobiles had been returned unserved, but since I am relying on Ext.R4
(c), which shows the sale in favour of the Tata Finance Limited, they have to be treated as purchasers and their sale to the petitioner as per the directions of the Chief Judicial Magistrate has to be held as valid and sufficient for the purchase of registration as required by Rule 47 (a) and (d) of the Rules.
9. With this direction, the Original Petition is disposed of.