Kathreena Thomas vs Regional Transport Officer and Others

Subramonian Poti, J.—When does a registered owner of a motor vehicle transferring the vehicle to another cease to be such registered owner. Is it on an intimation by the transferor that he has transferred the vehicle to another? If the answer is in the affirmative the Petitioner in this case should succeed.

K.L.Q. 2854 belonging to the Petitioner''s deceased husband Chacko Thomas stood registered in his name and that was under a hire purchase agreement with M/s. Forward Finance Company, Kottayam. Evidently because the hire purchase instalments were defaulted the financing company took possession of the vehicle and they intimated this to the Regional Transport Officer, Kottayam by letter dated 24th May 1972. Since at that time arrears of motor vehicles tax and also arrears of the tax due under Taxation on Passengers and Goods Act were due notices were issued to M/s. Forward Finance Company demanding the taxes. They paid tax under the T.P.G. Act. But in respect of the motor vehicles tax they disputed their liability and ultimately they filed O.P. No. 3561 of 1973 in this Court. By judgment dated 24th March 1973 this was allowed and the Regional Transport Officer was directed to collect the arrears of tax from the registered owner exonerating the Financing Company. That was when the Regional Transport Officer turned to Chacko Thomas. By that time Chacko Thomas was dead and recovery was sought to be made from his widow who is the Petitioner herein. She attempted to dispute liability for payment by taking an appeal to the District Collector and the appeal was dismissed by Ext. P-5 order. Ext. P-3 demand as confirmed by Ext. P-5 is under challenge here.

The period for which the tax due as now claimed is that from 1st April 1972 to 31st December 1972. That during this time the vehicle stood registered in the name of deceased Chacko Thomas is not disputed. But according to the Petitioner some arrangement had been reached between him and one Govinda Pillai Ayyappan Pillai by which the vehicle had been sold to the said Govinda Pillai Ayyappan Pillai as early as on 22nd August 1969. In support of this it is said that intimation as required by Section 31 of the Motor Vehicles Act was given to the Regional Transport Officer by deceased Chacko Thomas. But the date of such intimation is not stated anywhere and there is no information as to the date. The report of the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector revealed that after the seizure by the Financing Company Sri Chacko Thomas got back the vehicle from the Financing Company on 12th June 1972. At that time also the alleged transferee was no where in the picture.

Section 31 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 obliges a transferor of a motor vehicle to report the transfer to the registering authority within 14 days of the transfer and simultaneously to send a copy of the said report to the transferee. There is a similar obligation on the part of the transferee to report the transfer to the registering authority within 30 days of the transfer. He has to forward the certificate of registration to the registering authority together with the prescribed fee and a copy of the report received by him from the transferor in order that particulars of transfer of ownership may be entered in the certificate of registration.

It cannot be said that merely because a transferor intimates the registering authority of the transfer the transfer becomes effective in the sense he ceases to be the registered owner for the purpose of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Motor Vehicles Act recognises the registered owner as subject to certain obligations and he continues to be registered owner so long as in the register he is found to be such registered owner. Merely because a registered owner intimates the registering authority that he has transferred the vehicle the transfer cannot become effective because it will not bind the alleged transferee unless that is accepted by him also or is proved to be true. Therefore provision has been made in Section 31 for a report similar to the one submitted by the transferor to be submitted by the transferee along with the report of the transfer. That along with indicate that both transferor and transferee agree to the transfer. Payment of prescribed fee and submission of certificate of registration so as to enable the entry to be made in the certificate are also conditions necessary to effectuate such transfer. This being the scheme of the provision in Section 31 it does not stand to reason to say that mere intimation of transfer by the transferor absolves his responsibility as the registered owner of the vehicle. Unless the transferee performs his obligation in order to enable the registering authority to proceed with the transfer of registration and the transfer pursuant thereto is effected the transferor does not cease to be the registered owner. Normally this may be relevant when the question is as to the point of time when the transferor ceases to be the owner and transferee becomes the owner. Such a situation does not arise here because the alleged transferee has at no point of time applied for transfer, surrendered registration certificate, paid any fee, or produced any copy of any report sent to him by the transferor so as to enable the transfer to be made. There is no case that the transferor sent intimation to the registering authority within 14 days of the transfer which was sometime in 1969, and that with copy being simultaneously sent to the transferee. In these circumstances the stand taken by the Regional Transport Officer that the Petitioner is liable to answer for the tax due from her husband as registered owner of the vehicle K.L.Q. 2854 calls for no interference by this Court. The Original Petition is dismissed. Parties are directed to suffer costs in the circumstances of the case.