IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 12TH JULY 2011 / 21ST ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 4554 of 2011(T) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- HDFC BANK LTD, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SINGATORY, OFFICE OF THE HDFC BANK LTD, MATHER SQUARE, OPP.NORTH RAILWAY STATION, ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN, SRI.K.S.PRAVEEN. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, (ADDITIONAL REGISTERING AUTHORITY) REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, ERNAKULAM PIN-682 030. 2. ABDUL RAHUMAN, NADIM MANZIL, ALAMCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - PIN-695 102 R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.M.MANOJ THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/07/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.4554/2011 T APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE SALE CERTIFICATE IN FORM 21. P2: COPY OF THE ROAD WORTHINESS CERTIFICATE. P3: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.4/9761/08/E DTD. 30/12/2010. P4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD.1/12/2010 IN WPC.NO.31762/2009. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.4554 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner bank had financed a motor car bearing registration No.KL-07-V-Temp-3353 purchased by the second respondent on 25.7.2008. Ext.P1 is the sale certificate issued in respect of the said vehicle. The second respondent got the vehicle temporarily registered with the Additional Registering Authority, Ernakulam on 25.7.2008. The temporary certificate of registration was valid till 31.7.2008. In the temporary certificate of registration, an endorsement was made to the effect that the vehicle stands hypothicated to the petitioner bank. The second respondent did not however produce the vehicle for registration before the Registering Authority, Thiruvananthapuram within whose jurisdiction he is residing. The second respondent also defaulted repayment of the loan instalments. The petitioner therefore repossessed the vehicle and thereafter submitted an application before the first respondent for registration of the vehicle. Along with that application, the petitioner produced a duplicate copy of the sale certificate and the road worthness certificate issued by the dealer and the manufacturer respectively. He also stated that the originals are in the possession of W.P.(C) No.4554 of 2011 2 the second respondent who has not handed over the said documents to the petitioner. The Registering Authority rejected the application on the ground that the original documents required to be produced as per rule 47 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules have not been produced by the petitioner. Hence this writ petition challenging Ext.P3 and seeking a direction to the first respondent to register the motor car in the name of the petitioner without insisting on the production of the originals of the sale certificate and other documents referred to in rule 47 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in identical circumstances, a learned single Judge of this Court has by judgment delivered on 1.12.2010 in W.P.(C) No.31762 of 2009 directed registration of the vehicle on production of duplicate copies of documents and that as section 51(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act enables the financier to apply for a fresh registration certificate in the name of the financier, even in cases where the owner of the vehicle does not part with the documents or hand over the originals of the documents, there is no reason why duplicate copies cannot be relied on for the purpose of registration of the vehicle by the registering authority. 3. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit W.P.(C) No.4554 of 2011 3 wherein it is stated that in the case of issue of a fresh registration certificate under section 51(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, as the vehicle stands already registered and the name of the financier is also entered in the certificate of registration, the registering authority can issue a fresh registration certificate with notice to the owner of the vehicle. However, it is contended that in the case of vehicles which have not been registered at all, there will be no entry regarding the fact that a financial institution has financed the vehicle or that the purchaser has entered into a hire purchase agreement and therefore the certificate of registration cannot be issued for the first time in the name of the financier, without production of the originals of the relevant documents. 4. I heard Sri.T.A.Unnikrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.P.M.Manoj, learned Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent. Though the second respondent who had availed financial assistance from the petitioner bank has been served, he has not so far entered appearance. Sub- section (1) of section 41 of the Motor Vehicles Act stipulates that an application by or on behalf of the owner of a motor vehicle for registration shall be in such form and shall be accompanied by such documents, particulars and information and shall be made within such W.P.(C) No.4554 of 2011 4 period as may be prescribed by the Central Government. Sub-rule (1) of rule 47 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules stipulates that an application for registration of a motor vehaicle shall be made in Form 20 to the registering authority within a period of 7 days from the date of taking delivery of such vehicle, excluding the period of journey and shall be accompanied by the documents referred to therein. Sub-rule (2) of rule 47 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules stipulates that in respect of vehicles temporarily registered, the application under sub- rule (1) shall be made before the temporary registration expires. Sub-section 11 of section 41 of the Motor Vehicles Act stipulates that if the owner fails to make an application under sub-section (1), or, as the case may be, under sub-section (8) within the period prescribed, the registering authority may, having regard to the circumstances of the case, require the owner to pay, in lieu of any action that may be taken against him under section 177, such amount not exceeding one hundred rupees as may be prescribed under sub-section (13) thereof. 5. In the instant case, the first respondent does not dispute the fact that the petitioner had financed the purchase of the vehicle described in Ext.P1. As a matter of fact, the temporary certificate of registration issued by the Additional Registering Authority, Ernkaulam contains an endorsement to the effect that the W.P.(C) No.4554 of 2011 5 vehicle stands hypothicated to HDFC Bank, Thiruvananthapuram. The only reason stated by the first respondent in Ext.P3 for not registering the vehicle is that original records have not been produced. A learned single Judge of this Court has in identical circumstances directed by Ext.P4 judgment delivered on 1.12.2010 in W.P.(C) No.31762 of 2009 that on the production of duplicate copies of the original documents required to be produced, the Regional Transport Officer, Kollam shall register the vehicle after notice to the legal heir of the owner of the car. In the instant case, the purchaser of the car did not register the vehicle after temporarily registering it. He has also defaulted repayament of the loan as a result of which the financier re- possessed the vehicle and moved for registration based on duplicate copies of the documents. As the petitioner herein is similarly placed like the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.31762 of 2009, I am of the considered opinion that a similar direction as issued by this Court in Ext.P4 judgment can be issued in the instant case also. I accordingly dispose of the writ petition with the direction that in the event of the petitioner submitting duplicate copies of the documents whereever the originals are not available and producing the originals of documents which are available, the first respondent shall reconsider the application for registration which was rejected by W.P.(C) No.4554 of 2011 6 Ext.P3 order and pass appropriate orders thereon, after issuing a notice to the second respondent calling upon him to produce the originals of the documents which are in his possession. Needful in the matter shall be done and the vehicle registered expeditiously and in any event within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.