LAWS(KER)-1998-2-41

AMBIKA DEVI Vs. JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER

Decided On February 09, 1998
AMBIKA DEVI Appellant
V/S
JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the wife of one Somasekharan Pillai. Petitioner's husband is no more. He owned a Jeep bearing Registration No. KRO 5749. The petitioner, as wen as the second respondent, the father of the deceased claimed ownership over the vehicle. Both of them applied for transfer of registry in their respective names. They were asked to produce the necessary documents in terms of R.56 Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. But, they did not produce the same, the first respondent submits. Accordingly, the first respondent issued Ext. P8 order declining the request giving liberty to the parties to approach with necessary details. To decline their respective requests, it is stated that the parties did not produce the necessary documents which included (i) A certificate issued by a competent authority showing the person succeeding to the possession of the vehicle, (ii) A death certificate in relation to the Registered owner, (iii) Form 31 (5) duly filled up and signed, (iv) Cash receipt for Rs. 50/- (v) Registration Certificate and (vi) Insurance Certificate.

(2.) A reading of R.56 mentioned above does not show any requirements of production of a certificate issued by a competent authority showing the person succeeding to the possession of the vehicle. At the same time, it is clear from the facts stated in Ext. P8 that the certificate from the Tahsildar to show that the petitioner, the wife of the deceased, second respondent, the father of the deceased and me children of the deceased are the legal heirs of the deceased. It is submitted by the petitioner that the father inlaw cannot succeed to the possession of a deceased son, when there are class I legal heirs under the Hindu Succession Act The second respondent submits that he was in possession of the vehicle and he is also in possession of the Registration Certificate of the vehicle. Whatever that be, the contentions of either parties were not examined by the first respondent. He rejected the application only on the reason that the necessary details were not produced which included a certificate issued by a competent authority showing the person succeeding to the possession of the vehicle. As already mentioned, requirement to produce such a certificate is not in R.56 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules. Therefore, Ext. P8 is quashed. The first respondent shall take up the application submitted by the petitioner and the second respondent Parties are also free to produce death certificate in respect of the deceased, cash receipt for Rs. 50/-, Registration certificate, Insurance certificate and Form 31(5) duly filed and signed, if not already filled before the first respondent. On production of such details, the parties shall be heard by the first respondent with respect to their contentions and the first respondent shall take appropriate decision. The first respondent shall not insist any of the parties to produce "certificate issued by the competent authority showing the person succeeding to the possession of the vehicle". An order shall be passed at any rate, within two months from the date of production of necessary documents by the parties.