BINDHU Vs. R T A KOTTAYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN interesting question, inter alia, involving construction of S. 51 of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the "act") arises for consideration in this writpetition.

(2.) THE petitioner, a contract carriage operator, is the registered owner of a vehicle bearing No. KL-07/x 9525, which had a permit valid till 24. 3. 2009. Ext. P3 is the copy of the registration certificate in relation to the vehicle in question. The petitioner had entered into a hire-purchase agreement with the second respondent and the second respondent has, therefore, been recognised as the person with whom such agreement has been entered into by the petitioner in relation to the vehicle in question and so endorsed in ext. P3. Finding that the permit in question requires a renewal, the petitioner approached the financier, viz. , the second respondent, for a No Objection Certificate as evidenced by Ext. P4 dated 4. 4. 2009. According to the petitioner, the financier did not respond to the request made by her and therefore, in terms of S. 51 (7) of the Act, the absence of a response by the financier for an NOC, at the stage of renewal of an existing permit, within 7 days from the date of a request under S. 51 (6), will enable the petitioner to proceed as if there is a deemed consent. The petitioner, therefore, proceeded to submit a declaration in terms of S. 51 (8) of the Act before the registering authority, along with a copy of the request made to the financier for NOC and proof of service of the same. In spite of this, permit in question has not been renewed and hence, this Writ Petition.

(3.) THOUGH notice was served, there is no appearance on behalf of the second respondent. One P. K. Sunilkumar, Senior Manager of Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. , has sought permission to get impleaded as the additional third respondent. The contention taken in the affidavit in support of the application for impleadment (I. A. 7109/09 has been separately allowed) is that there is a tri-partite agreement bet ween the petitioner, second respondent and the additional third respondent and that it was the additional third respondent who enabled the petitioner to avail the financing facility offered by the second respondent. It is also stated that the petitioner defaulted repayment of the loan availed by her from the second respondent and that, consequently, the additional third respondent was bound to discharge the liability. It is common case that there are cases between the parties in the matter of steps for recovery taken by the additional third respondent and action taken by the petitioner for settlement of accounts. The additional third respondent affirms that NOC can be issued only if the petitioner pays it, the amounts which it has paid over to the second respondent.