IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
Neeru Kumar Yadav and Another - Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. and Another - Opposite Parties
Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. 8564 of 2023
Decided On : 17-08-2023
Motor Vehicle Act - Registration Certificate - Section 51(5)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner took finance from respondent no. 3 for purchasing a truck but defaulted on monthly installments. Respondent no. 3 took possession of the vehicle and requested a fresh Registration Certificate. The R.T.O. issued the fresh certificate in favor of respondent no. 3.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the power under Section 51(5) of the Motor Vehicle Act could be exercised when the registered owner defaults in repayment and the financier takes possession of the vehicle, regardless of whether the owner refuses to deliver the certificate of registration or absconds.
Issues: Default on monthly installments, exercise of power under Section 51(5) of the Motor Vehicle Act, possession of the vehicle by the financier.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the main ingredient for exercising power under Section 51(5) is the establishment of the fact that the registered owner had defaulted in repayment and the financier had taken possession of the vehicle. The court also emphasized the provisions of Rule 61(2) and (3) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the impugned order directing the vehicle to be registered in the name of the financier was upheld.
JUDGMENT :
1. The instant petition has been filed challenging the order dated 14.06.2023 passed by respondent no. 2 i.e. Assistant Regional Transport Officer (Administration), Bareilly and for a mandamus restraining respondent no. 2 from issuing fresh Registration Certificate in favour of respondent no. 3.
2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner had taken finance from respondent no. 3 for purchasing a truck bearing Registration No. UP25 CT-6625. In the writ petition, the petitioner has not disclosed the amount of finance/assistance taken by him from the said respondent, however, it is stated in paragraph no. 5 of the writ petition that the petitioner had contributed Rs. 8,00,000/-out of Rs. 42,00,000/-, the total price at which the truck was purchased. Meaning thereby that the remaining amount was financed by respondent no. 3. It was to be returned by the petitioner in monthly installments.
3. It is also admitted in the writ petition that the petitioner could not deposit the monthly installments. It appears that respondent no. 3 on account of default on part of the petitioner in paying the installments, exercised its right to possess the vehicle. Accordingly, its possession was taken on 23.05.2021 by respondent no. 3. Thereafter, respondent no. 3 requested the Regional Transport Officer, Bareilly by filing Form-36 to issue fresh Registration Certificate (for short 'RC') in its name. When the R.T.O. did not transfer the vehicle in favour of respondent no. 3 even after lapse of considerable time, it filed writ petition No. 7366 of 2023 before this Court with the aforesaid grievance. The writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 28.04.2023 directing the R.T.O. to take final decision in the matter within six weeks. Thereafter, the R.T.O. has passed the impugned order dated 14.06.2023, directing for grant of fresh Registration Certificate for the remaining period of validity in favour of respondent no. 3 after realizing requisite fee in exercise of power under Section 51(5) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.
4. The impugned order records that after receipt of Form-36 from respondent no. 3, a notice dated 10.11.2022 was issued in Form-37 to the petitioner. In response to it, the petitioner filed his objection and submitted that the vehicle may not be transferred in favour of respondent no. 3. The objection of the petitioner was forwarded by R.T.O. to respondent no. 3 seeking its comments on the same. Respondent no. 3 submitted its reply thereto on 05.12.2022. In the said reply, respondent no. 3 reiterated that the petitioner had defaulted in payment of the outstanding amount despite notice to him. The R.T.O. in the impugned order has noted that the petitioner in his objection has not mentioned anything about payment of the outstanding amount. Thereafter, the R.T.O. being satisfied that the petitioner had taken financial assistance from respondent no. 3 for purchasing the vehicle; that respondent no. 3 had taken possession of the vehicle owing to default on part of the registered owner in repaying the loan in terms of the agreement relating to finance, directed for fresh RC being issued in name of respondent no. 3.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that power under Section 51(5) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 could only be exercised in case the registered owner refuses to deliver the certificate of registration or has absconded. He submits that the original Registration Certificate was lying in the vehicle at the time its possession was taken by respondent no. 3 and therefore, it was not a case of refusal to deliver the Certificate of Registration.
6. Section 51 (5) of the Act reads as follows:-
“(5) Where the person whose name has been specified in the certificate of registration as the person with whom the registered owner has entered into the said agreement, satisfies the registering authority that he has taken po
AI
The court established that the power under Section 51(5) of the Motor Vehicle Act could be exercised when the registered owner defaults in repayment and the financier takes possession of the vehicle,....
Procedural legality upheld; lender's notifications of default validated, dismissal of petition confirmed.
Section 51(5) MV Act mandates considering fresh RC applications despite civil attachment orders.
Court directs consideration of re-registration application for repossessed hypothecated vehicle within time frame.
Motor Vehicle - Application for issuance of fresh RC - It is clear that if intimation of transfer of ownership is granted in favour of W.P. (C) RC shall be issued to the writ petitioner on a conditio....
Seized vehicle can be released only in favour of person whose name is there in original registration certificate of vehicle.
The court held that post-repossession, the petitioner has no enforceable legal rights.
Compliance with judicial orders pertaining to vehicle registration transfer is mandatory and must be executed without unnecessary delays.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.