Tata Motors Finance Limited vs The Regional Transport Officer
2021 Latest Caselaw 11036 Ker

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

   WEDNESDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1943

                    WP(C).No.4463 OF 2021(G)


PETITIONER/S:

            TATA MOTORS FINANCE LIMITED
            3RD FLOOR, JOSH ENTRE, INFO PARK ROAD,
            KUSUMAGIRI P.O. COCHIN 682 030, REPRESENTED BY ITS
            AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY SAINS MATHEW, S/O. MATHEW,
            AGED 45 YEARS, LEGAL HEAD, TATA MOTORS FINANCE
            LIMITED, 3RD FLOOR JOSH CENTRE, INFO PARK ROAD,
            KUSUMAGIRI P.O. COCHIN 682 030.

            BY ADV. SHRI.DOMSON J.VATTAKUZHY

RESPONDENT/S:

      1     THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER
            REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, IDUKKI, 685 603.

      2     ARUN E.R,
            S/O. RAMAKRISHNAN, ERAPPULLAMKATTIL HOUSE,
            PULIYANMALA P.O. KATTAPPANA, IDUKKI DISTRICT 685 515.




            SR.GP K.P HARISH

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.04.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.4463 OF 2021(G)
                                    2




                             JUDGMENT

The second respondent availed loan from the

petitioner for purchasing a commercial vehicle KL-6G-

1874. According to the petitioner, second respondent

committed default for repayment and hence by due

process of law, the vehicle was repossessed on

17.03.2020. The petitioner submitted Ext.P1 application

before the first respondent for issuing fresh RC. It was

rejected by Ext.P2 proceedings dated 14.12.2020. The

reason stated therein was that the order of the

Consumer Disputes Redressal Form, Idukki in CC.No.404

of 2014 was not complied with, and an objection was

raised by the owner. In the above circumstances, the

application for change of RC would be considered only

after compliance of Ext.P3 order, it was held. Aggrieved

by that, the petitioner has approached this court. Though

R2 was served in this proceedings he remained exparte.

2. Heard both sides. It seems that it is not clear WP(C).No.4463 OF 2021(G)

from the records of the petitioner as to whether they

have complied with the order of the Consumer Disputes

Redressal Form. In the light of above, I am inclined to

direct the RTO, to issue notice to the second respondent

and after hearing in the objectors, if any, consider the

application for fresh RC in accordance with law, as

expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of

six weeks from the date of service of notice.

Writ Petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

R.AV WP(C).No.4463 OF 2021(G)

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 24.08.2020.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 14.12.2020 REGARDING TH REJECTION OF APPLICATION.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CC 404/2014 DATED 26.12.2019.

    RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS        NIL