JUDGMENT

M/s.Muthoot Vehicle and Asset Finance Ltd. through instant writ petition has assailed an order Ext.P4 dated 26.04.2022 of Joint Regional Transport Officer, Thrippunithura, rejecting the prayer for issuance of registration of a vehicle bearing No.KL 39 L

1019 in their favour.

2. The facts in brief are that one John Paul had purchased the aforementioned car by obtaining a financial facility. Default was committed in making installments necessitating the petitioner to approach the concerned court under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act for repossession of the vehicle in view of the settlement of dispute, if any, through arbitration. The trial court allowed the ex parte application and petitioner company obtained possession as evident from the notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner dated 16.1.2020. The vehicle was later put in auction by the petitioner and was sold to one Jincy Thomas.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the vehicle in question had incurred certain damages and was given to M/s. VTJ Motors Private Limited, NH Bypass Road, Maradu for repair works and as per the bill, the expenses incurred were Rs.22,501/- and Rs.9,118/- which were not paid by the erstwhile owner. The Advocate Commissioner had taken the possession of the vehicle from the custody of VTJ Motors for the purpose of handing over its custody to the petitioner. The financier sold the car by virtue of an agreement to Jincy Thomas and in order to transfer the ownership of the vehicle, had submitted an application for issuance of RC which entailed into issuance of an impugned order. It is contended that the reason assigned for non issuance of RC was on account of the fact that the RTO had blacklisted the vehicle on the basis of the pending claim of VTJ Motors and in case VTJ Motors ultimately succeed, the liability of course would have to be warded off either by the financier or by the subsequent owner subject to the terms and conditions already entered into via an agreement.

4. Sri.Jimmy George, learned Government Pleader accepts notice and submits that in case such undertaking is given to the RTO the department would not be averse in issuing the RC.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book.

6. The facts noticed above would reveal that the vehicle in question was purchased by John Paul after obtaining loan from the petitioner. There was perpetual default in making installments necessitating the petitioner to move an application under Section 9 and the possession of the vehicle was taken from the custody of VTJ motors where the vehicle was lying for having undertaken the repair by incurring a liability of amount referred above. Since John Paul had not paid the amount the vehicle was kept under the custody of VTJ Motors. Under the direction of this Court, Advocate Commissioner had taken the possession of the vehicle and handed it over to the petitioner which has further been sold. I am of the view the equities would be struck by issuing directions to RTO to issue RC in the name of the petitioner in view of the order of the Arbitration Court de hor of the fact that the vehicle had been blacklisted on the basis of the pending claim of VTJ Motors, in case the petitioner either undertakes the indemnity bond or give an undertaking of either of the subsequent purchaser or of theirs warding off the liability of VTJ motors in case of final verdict in their favour, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

This writ petition stands disposed off.