Ownership transfer requirements under the Motor Vehicles Act were upheld, affirming the indemnity obligations of the buyer in a sale agreement.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the registered owner of a motor vehicle bearing registration No.KL-03-4662. She sold the vehicle to the third respondent herein as per Ext.P1 sale agreement dated 22.10.2005. It is stated that though on the vehicle being delivered over to the third respondent he had executed Ext.P2 consent letter dated 31.12.2006 wherein he had undertaken that he will transfer the ownership of the motor car within 15 days and will indemnify the petitioner against all claims arising out of the use of the motor vehicle from 22.10.2005, the third respondent did not take steps to transfer the ownership of the motor car and therefore, the petitioner was constrained to sent Ext.P3 notice dated 22.4.2008 to the Regional Transport Officer, Thiruvalla within whose jurisdiction the petitioner is residing and the Regional Transport Officer, Nedumangad within whose jurisdiction the third respondent, transferee of the motor car is residing. This writ petition is filed contending that though several years have passed after the petitioner sold the motor car to the third respondent, till date, the transfer of ownership has not been effected. In this writ petition the petitioner seeks an order directing respondents 1, 2 and 4 to seize the motor car bearing registration No.KL-03-4662 and to release it to the third respondent only after the transfer of ownership is effected.

2. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court the Joint Regional Transport Officer, Nedumangad has filed a report dated 14.3.2012 wherein he has stated that ownership of the motor car bearing registration No.KL-03-4662 was transferred to the name of the third respondent on 7.2.2010, pursuant to the application submitted on 12.1.2010. It is also stated that the third respondent has paid the motor vehicles tax up to date and he has also renewed the validity of the registration certificate.

In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that no further orders are called for in this writ petition. It is accordingly closed with the observation that if, the petitioner is proceeded against as the owner of the said motor car in respect of any accident which happened between 22.10.2005 and 12.1.2010, it will be open to her to contend that she had transferred ownership of the motor car to the third respondent under the original of Ext.P1 agreement on 22.10.2005 itself and that ever since that date the third respondent is the owner of the motor car.