Baiju K.T. vs The Regional Transport Officer and Others

K. Vinod Chandran, J.—The petitioner is aggrieved with the non acceptance of the application for transfer of ownership. The petitioner is said to be the son of one Gangadharan who was the registered owner of a motor car bearing registration No. KL-13Q-9097. On the death of the petitioner''s father, the petitioner allegedly filed an application for transfer of ownership to his name, as evidenced by Exts. P7 and P8.

The learned Government Pleader submits that the petitioner has not complied with the mandate of Rule 56 and hence the application was returned. It is also submitted that the registration certificate of the vehicle shows an endorsement made in favour of a financier under Section 51 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ''the Act''), hence the consent of the financier is required to permit transfer of registration.

On admission of the above writ petition, the financier, who is the 2nd respondent, was issued with notice. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/financier submits that the hire purchase account has been satisfied. But the petitioner''s father had taken two other loans which are in arrears and on that default, the 2nd respondent has exercised a bankers lien on the vehicle, which was hypothecated to the 2nd respondent. In such circumstances, no consent would be granted, is their contention.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would specifically point to sub-section (6) of Section 51 of the Act where transfer of ownership is not taken into account. Hence, the financier''s No Objection Certificate is not required to transfer the ownership of a motor vehicle, is the plea. It is contended that, what is required for transfer of ownership is only the compliance of Rule 56 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short ''the Rules''). Sub-section (2) of Rule 56 of the Rules specifically provides for production of certain documents before the authority for such transfer of ownership and that alone is required, is the contention.

Immediately, it is to be noticed that the learned Government Pleader has specifically contended that the documents under Rule 56 has not been produced. Even ignoring that submission, it is not as if the petitioner, the legal heir of the registered owner, could be granted transfer of registration on mere production of documents prescribed under sub-section (2) of Section 56. The protection to a financier, granted under Section 51, by sub-section (4) stipulates a consent from the financier for transfer of ownership. Sub-section (4) of Section 51 of the Act is extracted hereunder:

"No entry regarding the transfer of ownership of any motor vehicle which is held under the said agreement shall be made in the certificate of registration except with the written consent of 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". 6. In such circumstances, without the consent of the 2nd respondent/financier, definitely there could be no transfer of ownership granted. The petitioner could either approach the financier and obtain his consent on whatever terms agreed between them or if the petitioner''s contention is against the banker''s lien exercised by the 2nd respondent as such, then the petitioner''s remedy would be before the appropriate civil forum.

The writ petition is dismissed reserving the liberty of the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum. Parties are left to suffer their respective costs.