Kerala High Court
Soumya.S vs Shine.P.G on 8 January, 2020
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 18TH POUSHA, 1941
WP(C).No.24050 OF 2019(E)
PETITIONER/S:
SOUMYA.S
AGED 35 YEARS
PUTHUVANA PUTHEN VEEDIL, KURAVAN KUZHY P.O.,
THIRUVALLA - 689 548.
BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR
RESPONDENT/S:
1 SHINE.P.G
S/O. GOPI, PUTHETHU HOUSE, RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA PIN
689 672.
2 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
PATHANAMTHITTA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NEAR
STADIUM JUNCTION, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689 645.
3 THE SECRETARY
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PATHANAMTHITTA, NEAR
STADIUM JUNCTION, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689 645.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS
OTHER PRESENT:
GP MABLE C KURIAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C).No.24050/19 2
(CR)
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the wife of late Shan P.G., who was the registered owner and permit holder in respect of stage carriage bearing Registration No.KL-03/P-625. Under the permit the vehicle could operate on the route Ranni to Thiruvalla and the permit was valid up to 05.01.2014. It would appear that the petitioner's husband died on 22.8.2010 leaving the petitioner and her mother-in-law Sumathikutty Amma as the Class-I legal heirs. After the death of the petitioner's husband, Sumathikutty Amma applied for a transfer of the permit in her name. On coming to know of the application filed by the said Sumathikutty Amma before the Regional Transport Authority, the petitioner filed her objections to the proposed transfer. The application filed by Sumathikutty Amma was, however, not considered on account of the fact that she had not produced any document to substantiate her legal entitlement to possess the vehicle. A subsequent application preferred by Sumathikutty Amma for a temporary permit to operate the vehicle in the same route, although refused by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, was eventually granted to her in appeal. Although the said grant was challenged by the petitioner through a writ petition, the same was rejected by this Court. On the strength of the temporary permit, Smt. W.P.(C).No.24050/19 3 Sumathikutty Amma operated the vehicle in the route aforementioned.
2. The facts in the writ petition would indicate that on 01.07.2016 Sumathikutty Amma garaged the vehicle and submitted a non-use intimation. It is not in dispute that, thereafter, on 11.6.2017, Sumathikutty Amma expired. Immediately thereafter, by an application dated 13.07.2017, the 1 st respondent, who is the brother of the petitioner's late husband, and the son of late Sumathikutty Amma, applied for a transfer of permit in respect of the vehicle as a successor to the possession of the vehicle. On coming to know of the filing of such an application, the petitioner filed her objections to the same. The application preferred by the 1 st respondent was thereafter taken up for consideration by the Regional Transport Authority on 28.9.2017, and after taking note of the objections filed by the petitioner, the Regional Transport Authority, by Ext.P3 order dated 28.09.2017, rejected the application of the 1st respondent for transfer of permit. Aggrieved by the said order, the 1st respondent preferred an appeal as MVAA No.261 of 2017 before the STAT. Taking note of the filing of the appeal, the petitioner got herself impleaded in the said appeal. The appeal was subsequently disposed by Ext.P6 judgment dated 20.07.2018, whereby the STAT remanded the matter for fresh consideration by the 2nd respondent. In the meanwhile, through an application dated 04.01.2018, the petitioner too requested for a transfer of the permit in her name as the successor to the possession of the vehicle. W.P.(C).No.24050/19 4 Thereafter, and acting in tune with the directions of the STAT P6 judgment, the petitioner and the 1st respondent were directed by the 3rd respondent to produce documents to substantiate their respective contentions regarding the succession to the possession of the vehicle. Thereafter, after examining the material before it, the 2 nd respondent, by Ext.P9 order dated 23.02.2019, allowed the petitioner's application and rejected the application preferred by the 1st respondent for the transfer of permit. Aggrieved by the said order of the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent preferred both an appeal and a revision against Ext.P9 order before the STAT. The appeal was preferred against the decision in Ext.P9 to accept the application of the petitioner and the revision was filed against the decision in Ext.P9 that rejected the application of the 1st respondent. The appeal and revision were both considered by STAT in Ext.P12 order, which set aside Ext.P9 order and directed the 2nd respondent to pass fresh orders in the matter after looking into the documents produced by the 1 st respondent and the petitioner to substantiate their contentions with regard to succession to the possession of the vehicle in question. Ext.P12 order of the STAT is impugned in this writ petition, inter alia, on the contention that none of the grounds urged by the writ petitioner before the STAT were considered by the STAT and further that the findings in Ext.P12 order are clearly illegal inasmuch as they are contrary to the express provisions of the statute.
W.P.(C).No.24050/19 5
3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1 st respondent, wherein detailed averments have been made regarding the marital life of the petitioner and her late husband to suggest that the relationship was not cordial. It is also the case of the 1 st respondent that, for obtaining the possession of the vehicle as also the permit, the petitioner has instituted a suit as O.S.No.61 of 2014 before the Sub Court, Pathanamthitta for declaration of title and also for partition of properties owned by her late husband. It is the case of the 1 st respondent that it is by suppressing all these facts that the petitioner had filed W.P.(C).No.11963/2018 earlier, as also the present writ petition impugning Ext.P12 order of the STAT. With specific reference to the statutory provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act, it is stated that the application of the 1st respondent under Section 82(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act was rightly allowed by the STAT, which found force in the contention of the 1st respondent with regard to his entitlement to the transfer of the permit and it was under those circumstances that through Ext.P12 order, Ext.P9 order was set aside and a re-consideration of the matter directed by the STAT. The learned counsel for the 1 st respondent would also vehemently maintain that, inasmuch as the 1 st respondent is in factual possession of the vehicle, the findings of the STAT, that suggest that he could also aspire for a transfer of the permit, cannot be said to be legally flawed.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel W.P.(C).No.24050/19 6 for the 1st respondent and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents 2 and 3.
5. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the Bar, I find from a perusal of Section 82(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act that under circumstances where an application is made before the Transport Authority within three months of the death of the holder of a permit, he may transfer the permit to the person succeeding to the possession of the vehicle covered by the permit. Through a proviso to the said Section, the Transport Authority is also granted the power to condone the delay in preferring the application if he is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by good and sufficient cause from making an application within the time specified. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that before the Transport Authority there were applications preferred by the petitioner as well as by the 1st respondent for the transfer of the permit, that was initially issued to the petitioner's late husband. Although on the death of the husband, the mother-in-law Sumathikutty Amma had applied for a transfer of the permit in her name, in her capacity as one of the legal heirs of the deceased husband of the petitioner, the said application was rejected on the ground that she had not produced necessary documents to show the succession to the possession of the vehicle. At any rate, it would appear that Sumathikutty Amma subsequently applied for, and obtained, a temporary W.P.(C).No.24050/19 7 permit for operating the vehicle, and the vehicle was so operated till it was garaged by Sumathikutty Amma, who subsequently expired on 11.06.2017.
6. The question then arises as to whether, after the death of Sumathikutty Amma, it is the petitioner or the 1 st respondent who has a better claim to the possession of the vehicle covered by the permit. The learned counsel for the petitioner would draw my attention to the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and, in particular, Section 15 of the said Act, which, consequent to the amendment by notification dated 10.11.2016, mandates that "any property inherited by a female Hindu from her pre-deceased son shall devolve, not upon the other heirs referred to in sub- section (1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the pre-deceased son from whom she inherited the property."
When applied to the facts of the instant case, although Sumathikutty Amma was a legal heir along with the writ petitioner to the property of the writ petitioner's late husband, the rights/interests that devolved upon Sumathikutty Amma had to revert back to the writ petitioner consequent to her death on 11.06.2017. This is so, because Sumathikutty Amma and the writ petitioner were the only legal heirs entitled to the succession of the property of the petitioner's late husband and the 1 st respondent was not a legal heir of the petitioner's late husband. In the backdrop of the said legal position with regard to the entitlement to the property of the petitioner's W.P.(C).No.24050/19 8 late husband, when I analyse the provisions of Section 82(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the words "person succeeding to the possession of the vehicle"
appearing in Section 82(3) have to be read as "referring to the person who legally succeeds to the possession of the vehicle". In the instant case, therefore, between the petitioner and the 1 st respondent, the petitioner would have the better claim to the possession of the vehicle inasmuch as she is the person who succeeds to the possession of the vehicle in law. I am therefore of the view that the remand by the STAT in Ext.P12 order was wholly unnecessary inasmuch as there cannot be any dispute with regard to the inter se entitlement between the petitioner on the one hand and the 1 st respondent on the other with regard to the possession of the vehicle.
Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed by quashing Ext.P12 order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal and upholding Ext.P9 order of the 2 nd respondent with consequential reliefs to the petitioner.
Sd/-
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE okb //True copy// P.S. to Judge W.P.(C).No.24050/19 9 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 26.07.2017.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED
28.09.2017.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE REGIONAL
TRANSPORT AUTHORITY DATED 28.09.2017.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ACCOMPANYING THE
APPLICATION DATED 04.01.2018.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE 3RD
RESPONDENT DATED 24.01.2018.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIBUNAL
IN MVAA 261/2017 DATED 20.07.2018.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED
11.09.2018.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL HEIRSHIP CERTIFICATE
ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER DATED
12.12.2018.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE REGIONAL
TRANSPORT AUTHORITY DATED 23.02.2019.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM IN MVAA
106/2019.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED IN
MVAA 106/2019.
W.P.(C).No.24050/19 10
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT/ORDER OF
THE TRIBUNAL DATED 16.08.2019.
EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED ON
14.6.2019.
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OP NO.381 OF
2010 FILED BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT,
THIRUVALLA.
EXHIBIT R1(B) TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OP NO.580 OF
2010 FILED BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT,
THIRUVALLA.
EXHIBIT R1(C) TRUE COPY OF THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE OF
THE WRIT PETITIONER WITH SRI. ANIL KUMAR.
EXHIBIT R1(D) TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE DATED 17.5.2014 IN
OP NO.381/2010 OF THE FAMILY COURT,
THIRUVALLA.
EXHIBIT R1(E) TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS 61/2014
BEFORE THE SUB COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA FILED
BY THE WRIT PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT R1(F) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.2.2014
IN WPC 4195/2014 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT R1(G) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.02.2015
IN WPC NO.30865/2014 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT R1(H) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF
PERMIT SUBMITTED BY THE MOTHER OF THE 3RD
RESPONDENT DATED 16.12.2013.
EXHIBIT R1(I) TRUE COPY OF THE TEMPORARY PERMIT ISSUED BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT VALID TILL 22.07.2017.
W.P.(C).No.24050/19 11
EXHIBIT R1(J) TRUE COPY OF FORM 35 DATED 24.08.2013
SUBMITTED BY THE MOTHER OF THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.