A vehicle buyer’s negligence in not transferring registration can absolve the seller of liability for damages.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2001 in O.S.No. 16/1997 on the files of the Sub Court, Attingal.

2. The suit was filed for realisation of damages.

After the decree was passed, the plaintiff died on 02.04.2002, and the appeal is preferred by the legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff.

3. The plaintiff purchased a 1990 model mini lorry bearing Registration No. KL-01 9210 for a consideration of Rs.1,76,000/- from the defendant. An amount of Rs 15,000/- was paid on 24.08.1994 and the balance amount was paid on 01.09.1994. At the time of the transaction, the defendant delivered the permit, RC book, and other documents relating to the vehicle to the plaintiff. The defendant informed the plaintiff that he purchased the vehicle from one Prasanna and agreed to transfer the permit in the name of plaintiff within six months. According to the plaintiff, on verification of permit, it was found that the permit was valid up to 15.06.2000. The vehicle continued to be registered in the name of the original owner, Smt.Prasanna, and the defendant made no effort to have the vehicle registered in the name of the plaintiff. At the time purchase of the vehicle by the defendant, the registered owner had imposed a condition on the defendant that the permit should be transferred to his name within six months. As this condition was violated, the registered owner filed a petition before the RTO seeking cancellation of the permit, and the permit was accordingly cancelled. The said fact came to the knowledge of the plaintiff only long after his purchase of the vehicle. After spending an amount of Rs.35,000/- to put the vehicle in good condition, when the vehicle was presented for test in August 1996, all the documents relating to the vehicle were seized by the authorities on the ground that the permit had been cancelled. The plaintiff thereafter approached the registered owner, who informed him that, since the permit had not been transferred to the defendant’s name within six months as agreed by the defendant, she had approached the RTO for cancellation of the permit. It is contended that the defendant did not disclose this condition to the plaintiff and that, at the time of purchase, the permit was valid up to 15.06.2000. It is stated that the plaintiff expressed his willingness to return the vehicle to the defendant on the condition of receipt of the amount paid by him and Rs.35,000/- spent on the vehicle, but the defendant was not agreeable to the same. It is contended that due to the non-operation of the vehicle, the plaintiff had sustained a loss of Rs.200/- per day. Though a lawyer's notice was sent, the defendant did not accept the same. Accordingly, the above suit was filed for realisation of damages amounting to Rs.1,25,000/- with 12% interest per annum.

4. The defendant filed a written statement denying all the allegations. It was stated that all the documents pertaining to the vehicle were handed over to the plaintiff at the time of sale. It was a 1990 model vehicle and the permit was valid up to 1995. The plaintiff did not take any steps to transfer the registration of the vehicle to his name and instead renewed the permit in the name of the registered owner. In these circumstances, the registered owner filed a petition before the RTO for cancellation of the permit. It is stated that the plaintiff was aware that the permit was valid only up to 1995 and that the defendant had instructed him to renew the permit before its expiry. It is contended that there was no wilful laches on the part of the defendant and that he is not responsible for the seizure of the documents by the tr