M/S Pragati Paper Mill Ltd. vs M/S British Motor Car Co. Ltd. & ...
2010 Latest Caselaw 3749 Del

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
              RFA No. 30/2004
                       Judgment delivered on: 12.08.2010

M/s Pragati Paper Mill Ltd.       ..... Appellant
                     Through: Mr. Pramod Kr. Sharma,Advocate
                     Versus
M/s British Motor Car Co. Ltd. & Ors.     ..... Respondents
                     Through: Mr. Aadesh Ganesh, Advocate

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR,

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may            Yes
   be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to Reporter or not?                   Yes

3. Whether the judgment should be reported              Yes
   in the Digest?
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J. Oral:
*

1. By this appeal filed under section 96 of Civil Procedure

Code, 1908 the appellant seeks to challenge the judgment and

decree dated 22.09.2003 passed by the Ld. Additional District

Judge whereby the suit for recovery of Rs.15,65,999/- filed by

the appellant was dismissed.

2. Brief facts relevant for deciding the present appeal

are that the appellant purchased a car "Opel Astra" of

registration no. DL 8C F 3535 from the respondent no.1 on

18.9.99 for a sum of Rs. 7, 55,000/- after availing a discount of

Rs. 1, 59,875/- . The said car was initially sold by the

respondents to one Ms. Rewa but was surrendered by her as

the cheque issued by her towards the sale price of the car got

dishonoured. However, the registration of the said car at the

time it was purchased by the appellant was in the name of Ms.

Rewa but after the said car was purchased by the appellant all

papers regarding the transfer of the registration including form

no.29 and 30 signed by Ms. Rewa were handed over to the

appellant by the respondents. However till after two and a half

years of the said purchase the appellant did not get the

registration of the car transferred in his name, and thereafter

filed a suit bearing no. 660/2002 against the respondents

alleging responsibility of the said transfer on them and claiming

damages to the tune of Rs. 15, 65, 999 /- . The said suit was

decreed in favour of the respondents and against the appellant

vide judgment and decree dated 22.9.2003 and feeling

aggrieved with the same the appellant has preferred the

present appeal.

3. The short issue arising in the present appeal is as to

whether it was the liability of the transferee to approach the

registering authority for the transfer of ownership of the

purchased vehicle in his name or of the transferor in whose

name the ownership of the vehicle existed or the dealer

through whom the sale of the vehicle has taken place. Neither

in the suit nor in the appeal the petitioner has impleaded the

transferor of the vehicle Ms. Rewa in whose favour the

ownership of the vehicle was transferred in the registering

authority of the transport department but since the cheque

issued by the said Ms Rewa towards sale price was dishonoured

therefore the said "Opel Astra" Car was not delivered to the

original buyer Ms. Rewa. It is not in dispute that so far the

present appellant is concerned, he had paid the full

consideration amount as was demanded from him by the

respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and the said "Opel Astra" car bearing

Registration No. DL-8C-F-3535 was also delivered to the

appellant. The appellant has claimed an amount of

Rs.15,65,999/- i.e. an amount of Rs.7,55,000/- towards the

price of the car, Rs.2,15,175/- by way of interest, Rs.2,00,000/-

towards mental harassment and damages, Rs.1,95,824/-

towards extra amount of income tax paid by the appellant. The

case of the appellant as set up before the Trial Court as well as

before this court is that it was the obligation of the respondent

Nos. 1 & 2 to get the ownership of the car transferred in the

name of the appellant and not of the actual transferor with

whom the appellant had no dealings whatsoever. Counsel for

the appellant laid much stress on the letter of the respondents

wherein they confirmed the fact that transfer of the ownership

of the said car is under process with the registring authority for

which form Nos. 29 and 30 were submitted by them. The

contention of the counsel for the appellant is that the said

document duly proved on record clearly shows that the

responsibility was taken by the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 to get

the ownership of the said vehicle transferred in the name of the

appellant and even all the transfer documents were taken by

them from Ms. Rewa and the same were directly submitted by

them with the concerned registering authority. Counsel for the

respondent Nos. 1 & 2, on the other hand, has taken a stand

that the appellant had purchased the second hand car at a

discounted rate of Rs. 7,55,000/- and the appellant was fully

aware of the fact that the said car was registered in the name

of the original purchaser Ms. Rewa. Counsel further submits

that the necessary transfer documents were delivered to the

appellant at the time of delivering the possession of the car

and therefore it was for the appellant itself to have applied for

the transfer of the ownership of the said vehicle in the records

of the registering authority. Counsel for the respondent

further submits that in the evidence adduced by the

respondent, it was clearly proved on record that the necessary

form Nos. 29 and 30 duly signed and executed by Ms. Rewa

were delivered to the appellant. Counsel further submits that

the appellant had never approached the respondents

complaining any inaction on their part to secure the transfer of

ownership in the name of the appellant till the said car of the

appellant met with a major accident after a gap of 2-1/2 years

from the date of purchase. Counsel thus submits that once

having delivered the possession of the car along with the

necessary transfer documents it was no more an obligation on

the part of the respondent No. 1 & 2 to keep chasing as to

whether the transfer of the ownership in fact has taken place or

not. Counsel further submits that had the appellant found any

difficulty in securing the transfer then certainly they would

have rendered the necessary assistance in the matter. Counsel

thus submits that there is no illegality in the order passed by

the Ld. Trial Court dismissing the suit of the appellant.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 prohibits

any person to drive any motor vehicle unless the vehicle is

registered. Section 40 further provides that every owner of a

motor vehicle shall cause the vehicle to be registered by a

registering authority in whose jurisdiction he has residence or

place of business. Section 41 provides the procedure as to

how registration can be made and Section 50 deals with the

transfer of ownership. To decide the controversy in hand it is

relevant to reproduce Section 50 of the Act as under:-

50. Transfer of ownership.

(1) Where the ownership of any motor vehicle registered under this Chapter is transferred,

(a) the transferor shall,-

(i) in the case of a vehicle registered within the same State, within fourteen days of the transfer, report the fact of transfer, in such form with such documents and in such manner, as may be prescribed by the Central Government to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction the transfer is to be effected and shall simultaneously send a copy of the said report to the transferee; and

(ii) in the case of a vehicle registered outside the State, within forty- five days of the transfer, forward to the registering authority referred to in sub-clause (i)-

(A) the no objection certificate obtained under section 48; or

(B) in a case where no such certificate has been obtained,-

(I) the receipt obtained under sub-section (2) of section 48; or

(II) the postal acknowledgment received by the transferee if he has sent an application in this behalf by registered post acknowledgment due to the registering authority referred to in section 48,

together with a declaration that he has not received any communication from such authority refusing to grant such certificate or requiring him to comply with any direction subject to which such certificate may be granted;

(b) the transferee shall, within thirty days of the transfer, report the transfer to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction he

has the residence or place of business where the vehicle is normally kept, as the case may be, and shall forward the certificate of registration to that registering authority together with the prescribed fee and a copy of the report received by him from the transferor in order that particulars of the transfer of ownership may be entered in the certificate of registration.

(2) Where-

(a) the person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered dies, or

(b) a motor vehicle has been purchased or acquired at a public auction conducted by, or on behalf of, Government,

the person succeeding to the possession of the vehicle or, as the case may be, who has purchased or acquired the motor vehicle, shall make an application for the purpose of transferring the ownership of the vehicle in his name, to the registering authority in whose jurisdiction he has the residence or place of business where the vehicle is normally kept, as the case may be, in such manner, accompanied with such fee, and within such period as may be prescribed by the Central Government.

(3) If the transferor or the transferee fails to report to the registering authority the fact of transfer within the period specified in clause (a) or clause (b) of subsection (1), as the case may be, or if the person who is required to make an application under sub- section (2) (hereafter in this section referred to as the other person) fails to make such application within the period prescribed, the registering authority may, having regard to the circumstances of the case, require the transferor or the transferee, or the other person, as the case may be, to pay, in lieu of any action that may be taken against him under section 177 such amount not exceeding one hundred rupees as may be prescribed under subsection (5):

Provided that action under section 177 shall be taken against the transferor or the transferee or the other person, as the case may be, where he fails to pay the said amount.

(4) Where a person has paid the amount under sub-section (3), no action shall be taken against him under section 177.

(5) For the purposes of sub-section (3), a State Government may prescribe different amounts having regard to the period of delay on the part of the transferor or the transferee in reporting the fact of transfer of ownership of the motor vehicle or of the other person in making the application under sub-section (2).

(6) On receipt of a report under sub-section (1), or an application under subsection (2), the registering authority may cause the transfer of ownership to be entered in the certificate of registration.

(7) A registering authority making any such entry shall communicate the transfer of ownership to the transferor and to the original registering authority, if it is not the original registering authority.

6. The aforesaid provision of the Motor Vehicles Act

clearly shows that no vehicle can be driven on road unless the

same is registered in the name of the owner. In the present

case, the initial ownership of the said Opel Astra vehicle was in

the name of Ms. Rewa but she was never in the picture as the

said car was purchased by the appellant from the authorized

dealer i.e. respondent Nos. 1 & 2 in whose favour alone the

appellant had issued the cheque towards sale price of the

vehicle. As per the defence of the respondent Nos. 1 & 2, their

case is that all the transferred documents duly signed by Ms

Rewa were handed over to the appellant and it was for the

appellant to have acted to get the ownership of the said vehicle

transferred in its name. On the other hand, the plea of the

appellant is that the obligation was on the part of respondent

Nos. 1 & 2 to get the ownership of the said vehicle transferred

in the name of the appellant. Except one letter of the

respondent Nos. 1 and 2 wherein they have confirmed that the

said form Nos. 29 and 30 were submitted to the registering

authority, there is no other evidence led by the appellant to

show if any steps were taken by the appellant to pursue the

respondent Nos. 1 & 2 to get the said vehicle registered in the

name of the appellant. It is an undisputed fact that without the

registration of the vehicle being transferred in the name of the

appellant, the said vehicle was being driven on the road in

contravention of the provisions of Section 39 of the Motor

Vehicles Act. As per Section 50 of the said Act, it is the

responsibility of the transferee also to report about the transfer

within 30 days of the purchase of the vehicle and action U/s 50

(3) and 50 (5) r/w S. 177 can be taken against the transferor or

transferee for not reporting to the registering authority about

the fact of the transfer within the given time. As already

discussed above, the transferor is not in the picture in the

present case and therefore it was the sole responsibility of the

transferee to have reported the transfer of the said vehicle

within the mandatory period of 30 days and in case the

transferred documents were available with respondent Nos. 1

and 2 then transferee should have properly followed up with

the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 to get the ownership of the vehicle

transferred in its name within the said period. It is quite

apparent from the facts on record that the appellant became

active only when the said car met with an accident after 2-1/2

years from the date of the purchase and consequently had to

get major repairs done. No letter of request was made by the

appellant to the respondents during this period of 2-1/2 years,

therefore it is quite evident that the appellant itself was

negligent in taking proper steps to get the ownership of the

said vehicle transferred in its name.

7. Hence, in the light of the above discussion, I do not

find any merit in the present appeal, the same is hereby

dismissed.

KAILASH GAMBHIR, J August 12, 2010 pkv