IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS TUESDAY, THE 3RD MAY 2011 / 13TH VAISAKHA 1933 WA.No. 547 of 2011() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.27758/2010 Dated 03/03/2011 .................... APPELLANT(S): ADDL.R3 IN WPC ---------------------------- M.K.BENOY, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.JUNJU PILLAI, PINAM KOTTIN HOUSE, MARADY P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.FAYAZ RESPONDENT(S): WRIT PETITIONER & R1&2 IN WPC -------------------------------------------- 1. MINI SIMON, AGASSALAYIL HOUSE, KEEZHOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY, A.J.SIMON, AGANASSALAYIL HOUSE, KEEZHOR P.O., KOTTAYAM. 2. JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, VAIKOM-686604. 3. M/S.MAGNA FINCORP LTD., JAIN TOWERS, OPPOSITE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, N.H.BYE PASS ROAD, VYTTILA, KOCHI-682031. GP SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. --------------------------------- W.A.No.547 of 2011 E ----------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of May, 2011 JUDGMENT K.T.Sankaran, J. The additional third respondent in W.P.(C) No.27758 of 2010 is aggrieved by the judgment dated 3rd March, 2011 in the Writ Petition. 2. The Writ Petitioner Mini Simon is the owner of a stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-36/A-3575. M/s.Magna Fincorp Ltd., the second respondent in the Writ Petition, provided finance for the vehicle. There was default in payment of instalments. The financier repossessed the vehicle on 6.6.2010. Notice was issued to the Writ Petitioner. However, she did not pay the amount. The financier took steps to sell the vehicle. The vehicle was sold to the additional third respondent M.K.Benoy for a sum of ` 7 lakhs. Benoy paid the amount. Possession of the vehicle was given to Benoy. W.A.No.547 of 2011 2 3. The financier filed an application to the registering authority for issue of a fresh registration certificate alleging that the owner of the vehicle did not surrender the original registration certificate. The registering authority passed Exhibit R3(c) order allowing the application. That order was challenged by the owner of the vehicle Mini Simon in the Writ Petition. 4. The Writ Petition was disposed of by the judgment dated 3rd March, 2011 with the following directions: "(i) The petitioner shall within one month from today pay over to the second respondent the sum of Rs.9,77,077/- towards repayment of the loan availed by her. The petitioner shall within the said period deposit with the financier a further sum of Rs.50,000/- for payment to the additional third respondent as compensation. (ii) Upon the petitioner remitting the said sum of Rs.9,77,077/- and Rs.50,000/-, the second respondent shall handover the stage carriage bearing registration No.KL- 36/A 3575 to the petitioner and make an application in writing to the first respondent requesting him to cancel the orders, if any, passed on the application for issuance of a fresh registration certificate in the name of the second respondent. The first respondent shall thereupon cancel the order issued by him on the second respondent's application for grant of a fresh registration certificate in respect of the vehicle and inform the parties accordingly. (iii) The second respondent shall on the petitioner complying with direction No.(i), refund to the third respondent the sum of Rs.7,00,000/- paid by him and the sum of Rs.50,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner. Upon W.A.No.547 of 2011 3 the petitioner complying with the aforesaid directions, respondents 2 and 3 have no claim whatsoever over the vehicle or against the petitioner. (iv) It is clarified that if the petitioner does not comply with the aforesaid directions within one month from today, the writ petition shall stand dismissed and it will be open to the official respondents to proceed to issue the fresh registration certificate applied for by the second respondent." 5. The Writ Petitioner filed I.A.No.6336 of 2011 for extension of time to pay the amount. Time was extended till 25.4.2011. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Writ Petitioner, the financier and the appellant (additional third respondent in the Writ Petition). 7. A consensus emerged during the course of argument. It is submitted that the appellant would be satisfied, if he is paid a sum of ` One lakh instead of ` 50,000/- directed to be paid as per the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. The learned counsel appearing for the Writ Petitioner submitted that the Writ Petitioner is W.A.No.547 of 2011 4 prepared to pay a sum of 9,77,077/- and another sum of ` One lakh to the financier within a period of one week from today. It is also submitted that on such payment, the financier would pay a sum of ` 7 lakhs and another sum of ` One lakh to the appellant (Benoy) within another period of one week. On such payment of ` 8 lakhs to the appellant, he shall hand over the vehicle to the financier forthwith. The financier shall, thereupon, without delay entrust the vehicle to the Writ Petitioner, namely, Mini Simon. To the extent indicated above, the judgment of the learned Single Judge is modified. The Writ Appeal is allowed in part as above. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE csl