JUDGMENT
M. Ramachandran, J.
1. In response to a paper notification inviting tenders
for purchase of a vehicle, issued by the 4th
respondent-M/s. Tata Finance Limited–the petitioner had
submitted his tender for purchase of a Tata Sumo vehicle
for a sum of Rs. 1,61,000/-. It had been accepted and the
vehicle had been allotted to the petitioner. But
delivery was not given to him, since the registration
number allotted to the vehicle as KL-11/G.3767 had been
declared as obtained by forgery, by the Chief Judicial
Magistrate Court, Kozhikode. The application filed by
the petitioner for registration of the vehicle in his
favour, cancelling the original registration, was refused
by the Motor Vehicles Inspector, Ottappalam for
non-compliance of Rule 47 of the Central Motor Vehicles
Rules, 1989. The application should have accompanied by
an application for registration in Form No. 20, sale
certificate in Form No. 21, valid insurance certificate,
road worthiness certificate in Form No. 22 and a number of
documents. The Sale Certificate produced by the
petitioner showed the sale in favour of Sri. V.P. Abdul
Azeez, S/o. Imbichi Mohammed, Kunnoth House, Villiappally.P.O., Vadakara. The Chassis number of the
vehicle is 385 013 KSQ 945671 and Engine number of 483 DL
41 KSQ 8120137. The application was rejected by the
Motor Vehicle Inspector, Ottappalam on the following
reasons:
“The prime important document necessary for
registration of a vehicle is sale letter
received from the dealer who delivered this
vehicle (under Rule 47 of CMV Rules, 1989).
Produced sale letter is the copy of the sale
letter issued to Sri. V.P. Abdul Azeez on 4-12-97
with finance by M/s. Tata Finance Ltd.,
Cherootty Road, Calicut. With this sale letter
this vehicle cannot register in your name as
you applied in Form 20.
As per the order of the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Kozhikode, vide No. CMP 212/2001,
M/s. Tata Finance permitted to sell the vehicle
in question for maximum attractive price. But
there is no evidence for sale of this vehicle
to this applicant by M/s. Tata Finance Ltd. to
effect a registration under Rule 47 of CMV Rules or
provisions of Rule 57 of CMV Rules.
Hence your application is refused for
non-compliance of Rule 47 of CMV Rules 1989,
and directed to resubmit the application
complying requirements contemplated by the
above Rule.”
Though it might have been possible for the petitioner to
take up the matter in appeal, in view of the intrinsic
difficult circumstances involved he has opted to file
this Original Petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. From the averments in the
Original Petition as also the counter affidavit filed by
the 4th respondent the following facts have come to
light.
2. Sri. V.P. Abdul Azeez, showing his address
as Vattamparakkal House, Chooramvayal.P.O., Kunnamangalam
had approached the 4th respondent for getting hire
purchase facility for purchase of one Tata Sum Delux
vehicle and he had remitted the initial amount. The
dealer of the vehicle is M/s. Sakthi Automobiles. A
proforma invoice had been issued by the dealer in favour
of M/s. Tata Finance on 26-11-1997. The dealer delivered
the vehicle to Mr. Abdul Azeez. The invoice showed Tata
Finance as the purchaser and Sr. Azeez as the hirer. A
temporary registration certificate was given to Mr. Azeez
by the registering authority. Thereafter, evidently
Sri. Azeez had played foul and apparently using forged
printed invoice he had got the vehicle registered in his
address shown as Kunnoth House, Villiappally, Vadagara
without entering the name of the hire purchaser. He
obtained a registration for the vehicle from the Regional
Transport Authority, Vadakara and got the vehicle
registered as KL-11/G.3767.
3. One Mohammed Sadath, S/o. Mammoo Haji had
thereafter purchased the vehicle from Sri. Azeez and such
transfer had been got endorsed in the Registration
Certificate. He had entered not a hire purchase
agreement with another financier. For servicing the
vehicle, it had been entrusted with M/s. Sakthi
Automobiles. By that time all were alerted about the
nefarious transactions at the hands of Sri. Azeez.
Finding that the vehicle had come to them Sakthi
Automobiles refused to part with it. Mr. Mohammed Sadath
had therefore approached the criminal court for release
of the vehicle and the 4th respondent also had filed an
application for similar relief. By a common order
(Ext. P1) by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kozhikode
finding that there was fraud played by Azeez, including
forgery, the vehicle was directed to be handed over to
the owner as per the original records viz., M/s. Tata
Finance.
4. It appears that the crime registered
ultimately was referred on the ground of mistake of facts
and the proceedings had come to a close before the Chief
Judicial Magistrate. We are not expected to go to such
details, though a day light robbery has gone unnoticed.
Thereafter, on 27-09-2001, on an application filed by
M/s. Tata Finance, the Chief Judicial Magistrate had
permitted the Tata Finance to sell the vehicle in
question. It was on the above basis that the paper
notification had come and the petitioner became remitted
the money towards purchase price.
5. As pointed out earlier, his efforts to
get the vehicle registered in his name has not met with
any success, since the rules prescribes that an
application for registration has to be filed by the
purchaser. Since as per the original records Sri. Azeez
is recorded as the purchaser and no application has come
from him for registration of the vehicle, the petitioner
has come to face with difficulties as come out from
Ext.P7.
6. Of course, the respondents might be
justified in insisting that under Rule 47 of the Central
Motor Vehicles Rules sale certificate has to come from
the purchaser. But it is highly improbable that after
the nefarious transactions Mr. Azeez may come up owning
the transaction. He stands to lose nothing. The impasse
has to be solved at some point of time.
7. Even though Mr. Azeez had been described
as the purchaser, Ext.R4 series indicate that legally
Tata Finance was always the owner of the vehicle that had
been delivered in the name of Azeez. The existence of
the hire purchase agreement as between Abdul Azeez and
Tata Finance is undisputed and in the light of Exts.P1
and P2 orders of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, this
position stands confirmed. Therefore, it has to be
presumed that Sakthi Automobiles although had delivered
the vehicle in the name of Sri. V.P. Abdul Azeez, it was in
fact sold to Tata Finance Limited alone (see Ext.R4 (c)
invoice-cum-delivery receipt. Tata Finance Limited is
deemed as the owner of the vehicle and permission alone
is there given to Azeez to hire the vehicle. That he
made certain transactions, will not in any way militate
against the possession and ownership of Tata Finance
about the vehicle in question. They had expended the
money. When there is a definite finding that the
registration had been obtained showing a fake address and
showing fake sale letter and it has been declared as a
result of fraud, it necessarily follows that the
connected proceedings were null and void. It should
therefore be presumed that the vehicle had never been
registered validly, as already held by the Chief Judicial
Magistrate.
8. If we go on technicalities, the result
will be that even the order of the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, in valid proceedings, are rendered
ineffective. This cannot also be permitted. Therefore
it has to be adjudged that the Tata Finance were always
the owner of the vehicle concerned and since they have
sold it in favour of the petitioner, on the authorization
of Ext.P2 order, this has to be treated as a valid sale
of a movable article. If the petitioner produces the
sale letter issued by the Tata Finance in his favour and
produces Ext.R4(c) and other certificates required under
Rule 47 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, I direct
that the vehicle is to be registered in his name.
Unfortunately the notice issued to Sakthi Automobiles had
been returned unserved, but since I am relying on Ext.R4
(c), which shows the sale in favour of the Tata Finance
Limited, they have to be treated as purchasers and their
sale to the petitioner as per the directions of the Chief
Judicial Magistrate has to be held as valid and
sufficient for the purchase of registration as required by
Rule 47 (a) and (d) of the Rules.
9. With this direction, the Original
Petition is disposed of.