Delhi High Court
Muniya Devi vs Motor Licensing Officer Burari ... on 11 August, 2021
$~19
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 11th August, 2021
+ W.P.(C) 2438/2021
MUNIYA DEVI ..... Petitioner
versus
MOTOR LICENSING OFFICER BURARI
AND ANR .... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Ms. Ananya De and Mr. Anuj Chauhan, Advocates
For the Respondents: Mr. Shadan Farasat, Advocate
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
1. The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.
2. Petitioner seeks a direction to respondent no. 1 to renew the permit
of Autorickshaw bearing Registration No. DL 1RF/ 7359 and to transfer
the same in the name of the petitioner.
3. Petitioner further seeks a direction to respondent to waive off the
penalty amount imposed on account of delay in applying for the renewal of
the fitness certificate.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the autorickshaw was
Digitally Signed
Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:11.08.2021
Signing Date:12.08.2021 07:38:37 22:17
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
registered in the name of the Shri Dev Narain, husband of the petitioner.
She submits that Shri Dev Narain left his home on 20.11.2008 and
thereafter never came back and has not been heard of since then. A Suit for
Declaration for declaring the civil death of husband of the petitioner was
filed before the competent court.
5. Learned counsel submits that petitioner informed the Motor
Licencing Authority on 19.04.2016 that said Suit has been filed and
accordingly requested for extension of the permit which was to expire on
05.05.2016.
6. Learned counsel submits that a decree of declaration on death was
passed on 06.06.2019. Thereafter the petitioner once again approached the
respondents for grant of the fitness certificate and for exemption from
payment of the penalty amount but the same was not granted so petitioner
has been constrained to approach this court.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the delay in applying
for extension of fitness certificate occured solely on account of the fact that
the above referred Suit for declaration was pending. She submits that the
autorickshaw is the sole source of income for the family and amount of
penalty that has been levied would be onerous and petitioner is not in a
position to pay the same.
8. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent indicating the
penalty amount of Rs. 71,200/- (as on the date of filing of the counter
affidavit).
Digitally Signed
Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:11.08.2021
Signing Date:12.08.2021 07:38:37 22:17
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
9. Learned counsel for the Respondent submits that apart from the
penalty amount, petitioner would also have to pay charges to the Road
Transport Authority as well as for the insurance of the vehicle. Apart from
the said amount payable to the Road Transport Authority as well for
insurance, a transfer fee of Rs. 5751/- is also liable to be paid.
10. Learned counsel submits that the Commissioner has the power under
Rule 60 of the Delhi Motor Vehicle Rules 1993 to waive of the penalty
amount.
11. In the present case, petitioner's husband, who was the owner of the
autorickshaw left his home in 2008 and thereafter was not heard from since
then. He has been declared to be dead by decree of declaration.
12. The explanation given by the petitioner that she was advised to await
for a declaration from the competent court and as such could not apply for
the extension of the fitness certificate is a reasonable explanation. Even
otherwise so long as there was a declaration of the civil death of the
husband of the petitioner, even the respondents could not have transferred
the registration of the vehicle in the name of the petitioner. It is only after
the declaration of the civil death that the application would be entertained
by the respondents.
13. Keeping in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case,
I am of the view that this is a fit case where power should have been
exercised by the Commissioner under Rule 60 for waiver of the entire
penalty amount for the delay in applying for the renewal of the fitness
Digitally Signed
Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:11.08.2021
Signing Date:12.08.2021 07:38:37 22:17
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
certificate.
14. In view of the above, this petition is allowed with a direction that
the entire penalty amount is waived. However, petitioner shall pay the
charges of the Road Transport Authority as well as have the vehicle insured
and also pay the transfer charges.
15. Petitioner shall accordingly appear before the concerned
Commissioner of Transport on 17.08.2021 at 3.00 p.m. The Commissioner
of Transport shall indicate to the petitioner the charges to be paid by the
petitioner in terms hereof.
16. On petitioner's paying the charges of the Road Transport Authority,
Insurance and the transfer charges and satisfying the required parameters of
fitness, the Commissioner of Transport shall direct the concerned authority
to issue a fitness certificate in accordance with law.
17. Petition is allowed in the above terms.
18. Copy of the order be uploaded on the High Court website and be
also forwarded to learned counsels through email by the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
AUGUST 11, 2021
'rs'
Digitally Signed
Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:11.08.2021
Signing Date:12.08.2021 07:38:37 22:17
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
