IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2008 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 32519 of 2007(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M/S.ICICI BANK LTD., M.G.ROAD, PADMA JUNCTION, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 035, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER BABU SREEJITH. BY ADV. SRI.KKM.SHERIF SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN SRI.V.R.REKESH SRI.P.H.SAVAN KUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO MOTOR VEHICLES DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ADDITIONAL REGISTERING AUTHORITY, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 3. THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM AT KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM. 4. ABDUL RASHEED, S/O.ASSANAU KUNJU, MANNAN THARAYIL HOUSE, NEAR M.S.M. COLLEGE, KAYAMKULAM, PIN-690 502. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/04/2008, THE COURT ON 04/06/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).32519/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE SALE CERTIFICATE DATED 18/04/2006 EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE TEMPRORARY REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE DATED 18/04/2006 EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 09/10/2007. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY RS/ ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.32519/2007 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the financier of a Maruti Zen car, which was purchased by the 4th respondent, availing of hire purchase from the petitioner. 2. Ext.P1 is the sale certificate issued in the name of the 4th respondent, which also indicates that the vehicle is held under the hire purchase agreement with the petitioner. It is stated that, availing of the hire purchase, the 4th respondent purchased the vehicle and obtained Ext.P2 temporary registration. Later he had committed default in repayment and thereafter vehicle was surrendered to the petitioner. Thereupon the petitioner took possession of the vehicle and thereafter approached the second respondent for obtaining registration. It is the complaint of the petitioner that the request made by the petitioner for the 2 registration either on a permanent basis or for a fresh one, was declined to be entertained by the second respondent and it is for that reason, the writ petition has been filed praying for a direction to the registering authority to issue registration certificate in respect of the Maruti Zen vehicle bearing temporary registration No.KL-07-TEMP-371 in favour of the petitioner. 3. Learned Government Pleader entered apeparance on behalf of the respondents and would contend that the permanent registration can be issued only in compliance with Rule 47 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules and in this case, according to him, there has been non-compliance with the said Rule. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on Section 51(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act contend that, once the financier takes over the possession of the vehicle as in this case, he will step into the shoes of the original registered owner and that therefore he is entitled to get the certificate of registration in the manner provided in Section 51(5). 3 4. True, as contended by the learned Government Pleader, a situation as occurring in this case does not appear to have been provided for either in Section 51 or in the Rules framed under the Act. However, unless the Rule is interpreted in such a manner that registration is obtained by the petitioner, the consequence will be that the vehicle will have to be left idle and ultimately scrapped. That situation has to be avoided by giving suitable interpretation to the provisions in the MV Act and the Rules framed there under. 5. Section 51(5) provides for issuance of fresh certificate of registration in the name of the financier, when on account of the default of the registered owner, possession is taken over by the financier. In this case also default has been committed by the registered owner and he has voluntarily surrendered the possession of the vehicle to the petitioner. The difficulty arises only because of the fact that the vehicle was only under a temporary registration. In my view, that by itself cannot deprive the financier like the petitioner of his right to obtain a fresh registration 4 certificate in the manner as provided under Section 51(5) of the MV Act and the authorities are bound to consider the request of the financier in the manner as provided in the said section. Taking into account the aforesaid situation, I dispose of this writ petition directing that the second respondent shall entertain the request of the petitioner for issuing fresh registration certificate. I also direct that before final orders are passed by the 2nd respondent, notice shall be given to the 4th respondent and if he appears he shall also be heard. Taking into account the pendency of this writ petition and the circumstances of this case, I direct that the application of the petitioner shall not be rejected on the ground of the 7 days time limit prescribed in Section 47 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules. The request of the petitioner for condonation shall be entertained subject to compliance with other formalities in this behalf. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. 5