Delhi District Court
Shri Rambir Singh Nagar vs Mlo Zone East Ii on 20 November, 2014
In the Court of Sh. P.K. Matto, Additional District Judge01
(EAST) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
RCA: 43/2013
Unique Case ID No.: 02402C0350422013
Date of Institution : 25.10.2013
Date of Reserving Judgment : 10.11.2014
Date on which judgment was pronounced : 20.11.2014
In Re:
Shri Rambir Singh Nagar
s/o late Shri Mangte Singh
F204, Karkardooma Court Complex,
Delhi. .... Appellant/Plaintiff
Versus
1. MLO Zone East II
Transport Department
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Surajmal Vihar,Delhi92.
2. The State(NCT of Delhi)
(Through its TPT Secretary)
5/9, Under Hill Road,
Rajpur Road,Delhi54.
3. The Manager Sales/Registration
Hyundai Motors,Plaza Delhi,
A30, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate,
Mathura Road,
New Delhi44. ........Respondents/Defendants
: JUDGMENT:
1. This is an appeal against the impugned judgment and decree dated 26.9.2013 passed by Shri Jagdish Kumar, JSCC/ASCJ/Guardian Judge(East),KKD, vide which, the suit of the plaintiff for mandatory injunction was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the disposal of the present appeal are that the plaintiff had purchased a Santro car GL (Hyundai) on 15.11.2010 from the RCA: 43/2013 Rambir Singh Nagar vs MLO Zone EastII and ors. 1 Of 11 defendant no.3 and the plaintiff was asked by the defendant no.3 to submit the proof of permanent address, as well as the proof of address, where the plaintiff wanted to register the said vehicle. It is further averred that the plaintiff had deposited the copy of his election identity card, as well as, the proof of address of his place of business with the defendant no.3 as Chamber no. F204, Karkardooma Court Complex, Delhi, but the defendant no.3 had not mentioned the place of the business of the plaintiff in the invoice and certificate of sale in respect to the said motor vehicle and the defendant no.3 had only mentioned the permanent address of the plaintiff in the documents of sale of the said motor vehicle. It is further averred that the plaintiff has requested to the defendant no.3 to mention the address of his place of business in the said documents, but the defendant no.3 had turned down the request of the plaintiff.
3. It is further averred that the defendant no. 3 had issued a temporary registration certificate to the plaintiff on 15.11.2010 for a period of 30 days and released the vehicle to the plaintiff, without it's registration. It is further averred that the defendant no. 3 is a self registering authority duly authorized by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi, but the defendant no. 3 had told to the plaintiff that the said vehicle can be registered u/s 40 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 before the TPT authority, where the place of business of the plaintiff falls and further averred that the defendant no.1 is a competent authority to register the said motor vehicle and the plaintiff approached to the defendant no.1 for the registration of the said vehicle, but the defendant no.1 has refused to do so on one pretext or the other and the defendant no.1 had told to the plaintiff to either approach to the defendant no.3 or to the TPT authority at District Gautam Budh Nagar, UP for getting the permanent registration of the said motor vehicle.
4. It is further averred that the plaintiff had written a letter dated 27.2.2012 to the defendant no.1 and requested him to register the said motor vehicle under RCA: 43/2013 Rambir Singh Nagar vs MLO Zone EastII and ors. 2 Of 11 section 39 and 40 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 and the said letter was replied by the defendant no.1 on dated 29.2.2012 and the defendant no.1 had misquoted and misinterpreted the rule 47 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rule 1989. The plaintiff had issued a legal notice u/s 80 of the CPC to the defendant no.1 and 2 and the defendant no.1 had replied to the legal notice on dated 26.3.2012 and refused to register the said vehicle and stated that the defendant no. 3 is self registering authority and it cannot deliver the vehicle without permanent registration and emphasized that the said vehicle has to be registered at the address as mentioned in the certificate of sale and the plaintiff also approached to the defendant no.3 to change the address as mentioned in the sale certificate of the said vehicle, but the defendant no. 3 has also refused to change the address of the plaintiff in the sale certificate.
5. Feeling aggrieved with the acts and conducts of the defendants, the plaintiff had filed a suit for mandatory injunction against the defendants in the ld. Trial court and prayed for passing a decree for mandatory injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants directing the defendants to register the said vehicle in the name of the plaintiff.
6. Ld. Trial Court had issued the summons to the defendants and on completion of service, the defendant no.1 and 2 had filed joint written statement and stated that the suit has been filed without cause of action and the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands. Replying to the plaint on merit, the defendant no.1 and 2 had admitted that as per sale certificate, the plaintiff had purchased the said vehicle i.e. Santro from Hyundai Motors, Plaza Delhi,A30, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi, who is self registering authority under rule 30(2) of Delhi Motor Vehicle Rule 1993 and the plaintiff had mentioned his address as Village Sadullapur, Tehsil Dadri, Gautam Budh Nagar,UP in the sale letter form no. 21 and dealer's invoice and temporary registration certificate and on 15.11.2010, the MLO Mall Road, had issued the temporary registration no. DL 1TMP/AC4885 to the said vehicle RCA: 43/2013 Rambir Singh Nagar vs MLO Zone EastII and ors. 3 Of 11 for getting the permanent registration at RTO Gautam Budh Nagar, UP and the temporary registration certificate expired on 14.12.2010 and now the plaintiff wanted to get the permanent registration of his vehicle from the office of defendant no.1. It is further stated that the Hyundai Motors, Plaza, who is self registering authority cannot deliver the vehicle without permanent or temporary registration and further stated that if the purchaser gives the address of Delhi, then the self registering authority has to register the vehicle itself and if the purchaser gives his address of outside, then the vehicle can be delivered only after giving temporary registration certificate. It is further stated that the plaintiff has not furnished his present business address to the defendant no.3, at the time of purchasing the said vehicle and further stated that the defendant no.1 has no power to register the vehicle of the plaintiff and the plaintiff has already taken the temporary registration certificate of the vehicle from Mall Road authority at his residential address. The defendant no.1 and 2 had admitted that the defendant no.1 had received the letter dated 27.2.2012 and legal notice dated 17.3.2012 and stated that the defendant no.1 had replied the letter dated 27.2.2012 and notice dated 17.3.2012 vide reply dated 29.2.2012 and 26.3.2012 and after denying the other averments mentioned in the plaint, prayed for the dismissal of the suit.
7. The defendant no. 3 has filed separate written statement and stated that the registration as demanded by the plaintiff cannot be done by the defendant no. 3, who is only manufacturer of the vehicle and further stated that the registration can only be done by the registering authority i.e. defendant no.1 and further stated that no relief has been claimed against it. The defendant no.3 has admitted the fact that the said vehicle bearing engine no. G4HGAM108963 and Chasis no. MALAA51HLAM83296 was purchased by the plaintiff from the defendant no.3 on 15.11.2010. The defendant no. 3 has stated that the retailer invoice sale certificate, debit note and other documents of the sale of the said motor vehicle were issued to the plaintiff, as per RCA: 43/2013 Rambir Singh Nagar vs MLO Zone EastII and ors. 4 Of 11 procedure and rules. It is further stated that the plaintiff has provided the address of village Sadullahpur Tehsil Dadri, Gautam Budh Nagar, UP. The defendant no. 3 has denied that the plaintiff has supplied the address of his business place at the time of the purchase of the said vehicle. The defendant no.3 has admitted the temporary registration certificate was issued to the plaintiff in accordance with MV Act,1988. The defendant no.3 has also admitted that it is self registering authority as authorized by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi and after denying the other averments mentioned in the plaint, prayed for the dismissal of the suit.
8. The plaintiff had filed the replications to the written statements filed by the defendant no.1,2 and 3 and denied the averments of the written statements and reiterated and reaffirmed the contents of the plaint.
9. From the pleadings of the parties , the ld. trial court was pleased to frame the following issues on 23.3.2013:
(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction as claimed for?OPP.
(ii) Relief.
10.In order to prove his case the plaintiff has examined himself as PW1 vide his affidavit Ex.PW1/1 and in one way or the other he has reiterated the contents of his plaint and relied upon the chamber allotment letter mark A, sale document in respect of the vehicle in question Mark B, copies of the applications dated 27.2.2012, reply dated 29.2.2012, legal notice dated 17.3.2012 and it's reply dated 26.3.2012 Mark C,D,E and F. The plaintiff has not examined any other witness and closed his evidence. He was also cross examined by the ld.counsels for the defendants.
11. Whereas, the defendant no.1 and 2 have examined Shri Rakesh Kumar as DW1, vide his affidavit Ex.DW1/A, who has relied upon the reply dated 29.2.2012 and 26.3.2012 Ex.DW1/1 and DW1/2 and the defendant no.3 has examined Shri Manish Kumar as DW3, vide his affidavit Ex.DW3/A. They were RCA: 43/2013 Rambir Singh Nagar vs MLO Zone EastII and ors. 5 Of 11 also cross examined by the plaintiff. The defendants have not examined any other witness and closed their evidence.
12.The ld. Trial court after hearing the arguments of the counsels for the parties had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff, vide impugned judgment dated 26.9.2013 under appeal.
13.Feeling aggrieved with the impugned judgment and decree under the appeal, the appellant/plaintiff has filed the present appeal. Notices of the appeal were issued to the respondents and on completion of their services, they have put their appearances through their counsels.
14.The record of the trial court is also requisitioned and perused.
15.I have heard appellant in person and ld.counsels for the respondents and perused the record.
16.The appellant has submitted that as per rule 47 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rule 1989, the appellant is entitled to get his vehicle registered by the defendant no.1 and further submitted that this is no where mention in the rule 47 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules 1989 that at which place the application for registration can be moved and also submitted that since the provisions of rule 47 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules 1989 is keeping mum, where the application for registration of the vehicle can be moved. So, as per the said provisions of law, the respondent no.1 was under the obligation to register the vehicle of the appellant in Delhi and submitted that the ld. Trial court had committed grave error while dismissing the suit of the plaintiff and prayed for passing the decree of mandatory injunction in favour of the appellant/plaintiff and against the respondents/defendants and the respondents/defendant no.1 and 2 may be directed to register the vehicle of the appellant/plaintiff at Delhi.
17. On the other hand, the Ld. Counsels for the respondents have submitted that rule 47 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules 1989 only speaks about the contents of the application, which is required to be filed for the registration of RCA: 43/2013 Rambir Singh Nagar vs MLO Zone EastII and ors. 6 Of 11 the vehicle and further submitted that rule 47 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rule 1989 cannot be read in isolation and also submitted that since section 40 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 clearly states that the vehicle can be registered by the registering authority in whose jurisdiction, the owner of the vehicle resides or the place of business of the owner, where the vehicle is normally kept, is situated and submitted that since in the case in hand, the plaintiff has mentioned his place of residence of Gautam Budh Nagar even in the temporary Certificate, which is already there on the record of the trial court being mark B and also submitted that the appellant had failed to mention any address of Delhi and even in the documents relied upon by the plaintiff in the trial court, he has failed to disclose any address of Delhi and even at the time of obtaining the temporary registration certificate, he had mentioned his address of Gautam Budh Nagar. So, in the absence of any categorical address of the appellant of Delhi, the vehicle cannot be allowed to be registered at Delhi. He has also submitted that the vehicle was purchased by the appellant way back in the year 2010 and also submitted that the Temporary Registration Certificate was obtained by the appellant on 15.11.2010, copy whereof is placed on the record being mark B, which was valid upto 14.12.2010 and submitted that even in the Form 21(Sale certificate), the address of the appellant is mentioned of village Sadullapur, Tehsil Dadri, Gautam Budh Nagar, UP and also submitted that despite of issuance of Temporary Registration Certificate, the appellant has failed to get the vehicle registered even in UP, whereas, the same was obtained for Gautam Budh Nagar, for getting the vehicle registered permanently. But, he has failed to get the vehicle registered till date and the appellant is plying the vehicle without it's registration and prayed for the dismissal of the appeal.
18.I have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the appellant in person and the ld.counsels for the respondents and perused the record.
RCA: 43/2013 Rambir Singh Nagar vs MLO Zone EastII and ors. 7 Of 11
19.The perusal of the record shows that the plaintiff has filed the suit for mandatory injunction and sought direction for the defendants to register the vehicle in the name of the petitioner in Delhi and the ld. Trial court had framed only one issue that ''Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction as claimed for?OPP'' and the burden of proving this issue was on the plaintiff and in order to discharge his burden of proving this issue, the plaintiff has examined himself as PW1, vide his affidavit Ex.PW1/1 and in one way or the other, he has reiterated the contents of the plaint in his affidavit. He has relied upon the documents allotment letter mark A, sale document in respect of the vehicle in question Mark B, copies of the applications dated 27.2.2012, reply dated 29.2.2012, legal notice dated 17.3.2012 and it's reply dated 26.3.2012 Mark C,D,E and F respectively. He was cross examined by the counsels for the defendants. During his cross examination the plaintiff has admitted that the first insurance of his vehicle was done from Gautam Budh Nagar and from the perusal of the documents mark B, i.e. Form 21/Sale certificate, Debit Note and Invoice, it is clear that the plaintiff had given his address as Village Sadullapur, Tehsil Dadri, Gautam Budh Nagar and similarly in the Temporary Certificate of Registration, which is also Mark B, it is mentioned that the vehicle was to be registered permanently at Gautam Budh Nagar and this certificate was issued on 15.11.2010 and this was valid upto 14.12.2010. The appellant has submitted that since rule 47 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules 1989 does not speak of the place, where the application for the registration of the vehicle is to be filed, so, the vehicle may be registered by the respondent no.1 and 2 in Delhi.
20.Whereas, the counsel for the respondents have controverted the same contentions raised by the appellant and submitted that rule 47 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules 1989 cannot be read in isolation and this court does not find any force in the submission made by the appellant, as from the perusal of rule 47 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules 1989, it clear that the said rule RCA: 43/2013 Rambir Singh Nagar vs MLO Zone EastII and ors. 8 Of 11 prescribes about the contents of the application to be filed for the registration of the motor vehicles and this rule 47 cannot be read in isolation, it has to be read with the connected law regarding the registration of the vehicle and section 40 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 makes it clear that the vehicle may be registered by the registering authority in whose jurisdiction the owner of the vehicle resides, or the place of business of the owner, where the vehicle is normally kept, is situated. Whereas, section 42 of the Motor vehicle rule 1989 makes it clear that the motor vehicle can be delivered to the purchaser only with the registration of the certificate either it may be permanent or temporary, whereas, section 43 of the Motor vehicle act 1988 gives the power to the registering authority to issue the temporary registration certificate in case the permanent registration is not done. Whereas, section 34 of the Delhi Motor vehicle Rules 1993 deals with the issuance of the temporary registration of motor vehicles and the purpose of issuance of the temporary registration of the motor vehicle to obtain the permanent registration else where in the State for the purpose of section 40 of the Motor Vehicle Act. Meaning thereby temporary registration is issued only when the permanent registration certificate is not issued and from the provisions of section 40 of the Motor Vehicle Act, it is clear that the vehicle may be registered by the registering authorities, in whose jurisdiction the owner resides or does his business and in the case in hand, the appellant is a practicing advocate, but, he has not given any address in the above mentioned document to show that he is doing his practice in Delhi. The appellant has submitted that he has filed certain documents to show that he is doing practice in Delhi , but, this court does not find any document on the record of the trial court to substantiate such contentions of the appellant.
21.Even otherwise, the appellant has applied for temporary certificate of registration from Rajpur Road Registering authority and even in the said temporary certificate of registration, it is mentioned that the vehicle of the RCA: 43/2013 Rambir Singh Nagar vs MLO Zone EastII and ors. 9 Of 11 appellant was to be registered permanently at Gautam Budh Nagar and this temporary certificate of registration was issued on 15.11.2010 and it was valid upto 14.12.2010, but, even at the time of issuance thereof, the appellant had not agitated the said point as to if he was desirous to get his vehicle registered at Delhi. Had he intended to get his vehicle registered at Delhi, he could oppose the same at the time of issuance of said temporary certificate of registration of his vehicle and from the temporary certificate of registration it is clear that it was obtained to get the vehicle registered permanently at Gautam Budh Nagar and even from the other documents relied upon by the plaintiff, it is clear that the plaintiff has no where mentioned his any address of Delhi therein. He has mentioned his address of Village Sadullapur, Tehsil Dadri, Gautam Budh Nagar and even during his cross examination, he has admitted that the first insurance of his vehicle was issued at his address at Gautam Budh Nagar,UP. Since the appellant/plaintiff has registered his vehicle temporarily at Delhi stating therein that the vehicle was to be registered permanently at Gautam Budh Nagar, so, he is estopped from taking this plea that he has sought to get the vehicle registered permanently at Delhi. It is worthwhile to mention here that the appellant/plaintiff has no where mentioned in the documents relied upon by him that he is practicing at Delhi and he has given his address of residence in the above mentioned documents of Village Sadullapur, Tehsil Dadri, Gautam Budh Nagar and in the absence of his any address of Delhi, his vehicle cannot be ordered to be registered at Delhi.
22.In view of the above discussion, I do not find any force in the submissions made by the appellant that as per rule 47 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rule 1989, the appellant is entitled to get his vehicle registered at Delhi as this rule cannot be read in isolation it has to be read with the connected law regarding the registration of the motor vehicle and categorically the section 40 of the Motor Vehcile Act 1988 which makes it clear that the vehicle may be registered by the registering authority in whose jurisdiction the owner of the RCA: 43/2013 Rambir Singh Nagar vs MLO Zone EastII and ors. 10 Of 11 vehicle resides or has place of business of the owner, where the vehicle is normally kept is situated and in the case in hand the appellant has given his address as Village Sadullapur, Tehsil Dadri, Gautam Budh Nagar and not of Delhi, so I do not have inclination to the submissions made by the appellant, but, I have full inclination to the submissions made by the counsel for the respondents. This court does not find any illegality or infirmities in the findings of the ld. Trail court on the issue no.1, so the same stands upheld. The appeal of the appellant is hereby dismissed,being devoid of merit. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. Parties are left to bear their own costs. File be consigned to the record room. The record of the trial court is ordered to be returned.
Announced in the open
Court on: 20.11.2014 (Pawan Kumar Matto)
Additional District Judge01
(East), Karkardooma Court
Delhi
RCA: 43/2013 Rambir Singh Nagar vs MLO Zone EastII and ors. 11 Of 11
RCA: 43/2013 Rambir Singh Nagar vs MLO Zone EastII and ors. 12 Of 11