Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI
Hon’ble Thiru Justice A. Raman, President &
Tmt. R. Vanaroja, Member
REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
MEENAMBAKKAM—Appellant
versus
C. BABU & ORS.—Respondents
C.M.P. Nos. 325 & 326 of 2004 in A.P. Nos. 680 of 2000, 55
& 111 of 2001 & 680 of 2000—Decided on 19.3.2004

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Mr. R. Thirugnanam, CGP.
For the Respondent No. 1:Mr. P.M. Baskaran, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 2:Mr. R. Elumalai, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 3:Mrs. Kalyani Kailasam, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 4:Mr. R. Veeraraghavan, Advocate.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the act of seizure of the vehicle was found to be illegal and arbitrary, leading to the absolution of parties other than the 3rd opposite party from liability.

Headnote:
Seizure - Vehicle Seizure - [Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 39, Section 40, Section 41] - The court discussed the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, particularly Sections 39, 40, and 41, which deal with the powers of the Regional Transport Officer to seize vehicles. The court interpreted these provisions to determine the legality of the seizure of the vehicle in question and held that the act of seizure was illegal and arbitrary, thereby absolving parties other than the 3rd opposite party from liability.
Fact of the Case:

The complaint was filed due to the seizure of a vehicle by the Regional Transport Officer, Meenambakkam, based on the non-production of the R.C. book for verification. The vehicle had been purchased and registered, and the seizure was a result of a dispute over the assignment of a fancy number to the vehicle.
Finding of the Court:

The court found the seizure of the vehicle to be illegal and arbitrary, and reduced the amount payable to the complainant from Rs. 1,50,000 to Rs. 50,000, holding the 3rd opposite party responsible for the payment.
Issues: The main issue was the legality of the vehicle seizure and the responsibility for the incident, particularly regarding the non-issuance of the R.C. book and the assignment of the fancy number.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the act of seizure was illegal and arbitrary, absolving parties other than the 3rd opposite party from liability. It also emphasized that the responsibility for the seizure lay with the Regional Transport Officers and directed the government to take necessary steps to recover the amount from the person responsible.
Final Decision: Both the petitions were dismissed, and there was no order as to costs.

ORDER

Thiru Justice A. Raman, President—A common order was passed by this Commission on 13.2.2004 in the appeals A.P. Nos. 680/2000, 55/2001 and 111/2001. The operative and decretal portion of the award is as follows:

“In the result, we accept the appeal A.P. No. 55/2001 and A.P. No. 111/2001 and dismiss A.P. No. 680/2000. We modify the order of the lower Forum directing the 3rd opposite party (the appellant in A.P. 680/2000) to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- in all to the complainant with interest at 6% from the date of seizure viz., 28.8.1998 till realization. The amount awarded herein shall be paid within two months failing which it will carry 9% interest. As observed by Their Lordships, the amount shall be paid from the public funds immediately. The Transport Commissioner or the concerned Secretary to Government would take necessary steps to recover the said amount from the person who was responsible for this unpardonable behaviour. The 3rd opposite party-appellant in A.P. No. 680/2000 shall pay the cost of Rs. 250/- each to the appellants in A.P. No. 55/2001 and A.P. No. 111/2001. Time for compliance of the order 2 months.”

2. Now, the petition in C.M.P. No. 326/2004 in A.P. No. 680/2000 has been filed by one R. Shanmugam to implead him as a necessary party to C.M.P. No. 325/2004. C.M.P. No. 325/2004 has been filed by the appellant iin A.P. No. 680/2000 to clarify the common order made in the appeal A.P. Nos. 680/2000, 55/2001 and 111/2001. According to the petitioner in C.M.P. No. 325/2004 during the period of issuing R.C. book and registering of the vehicle namely 3.8.1996 to 30.11.1997, one C. Shanmugam was working as the Regional Transport Officer, Meenambakkam and that during the time of seizing of the vehicle of the complainant one R. Shanmugam was working as incharge of Regional Transport Officer. Therefore, the present petition filed seeking clarification as to who is responsible for the incident so that the Department can take decision in that regard and proceed further against the person who is responsible.

3. The complaint has been filed mainly because of the seizure of the vehicle by the Regional Transport Officer, Meenambakkam. The vehicle was seized on 28.8.1998. The vehicle was purchased by the complainant by availing financial assistance from the 1st opposite party. Necessary forms were all signed by the complainant and handed over to the financier/dealer. The vehicle was registered and registration No. TN-22-C-8484 was allotted. The vehicle was seized on the ground that the R.C. Book was not produced for verification. Ex. A6 is the letter by the Regional Transport Officer, Meenambakkam, calling upon the complainant to produce the R.C. book. The complainant informed the regional Transport Officer that the road tax token/R.C. were with the financier. The vehicle was registered and assigned the registration number as already pointed out. Along with the cost of the vehicle a sum of Rs. 477/- was collected towards comprehensive insurance, Rs. 1,750/- towards life-time road tax and Rs. 373/- towards registration fees and incidental charges were remitted. On the date when the vehicle was purchased, the dealer received the payment towards comprehensive insurance and remitted the amount on the very next day. The tax was paid on 24.12.1996 on which date registration charges were also paid. The vehicle was registered and assigned the Regn. No. TN-22-C-8484. What remained was only the handing over of the R.C. Book for which the necessary requisition had been signed by the complainant authorising the same to be delivered to the financier or the dealer as the case may be. The whole thing took a bizarre turn because of the fact that the number being a fancy number had been promised to certain other persons who had paid the money for the same. Therefore, when that person who had paid the necessary fees for obtaining the fancy number did not get it and when it was found that the complainant had been riding the vehicle with the sai

Click Here to Read the rest of this document