TCI FINANCE LIMITED Vs. DEPUTY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER VIJAYAWADA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed assailing the order of the 1st respondent, dated 12-5-1998, refusing to register the hire-purchase agreement in the registration certificate in respect of vehicles bearing Nos. A.P. 16W 838 and A.P. 16W 848 which are registered in the names of 2nd and 3rd respondents.

(2.) The petitioner is a financier. According to the averments in the petition, the petitioner has financed the 2nd and 3rd respondents for purchase of the above stated two vehicles in the year 1996. Thereafter, the vehicles are registered in the names of 2nd and 3rd respondents. However, it is the case of the petitioner that for sometime the 2nd and 3rd respondents have paid the instalments under the hire-purchase agreement but subsequently they committed default and thereafter the vehicles are seized by the petitioner in pursuance of the hire purchase agreement. After the seizure, the petitioner made an application to the 1st respondent to effect the entry relating to hire- purchase agreement in the registration book and to issue the new registration book in favour of the petitioner as required under Section 51 of the Motor Vehicles Act. On an earlier occasion the petitioner approached this Court for similar direction and the writ petition was disposed of with a direction that the application of the petitioner shall be considered in accordance with the rules and appropriate orders shall be passed. Consequently, the authority passed an order on 12-5-1998. The said order is assailed before this Court.

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that under Section 51 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act a duty is cast on the registering authority to make an entry in the registration book with regard to hire- purchase agreement in order to protect the interests of the financiers. The principal purpose for engrafting Section 51 is to ensure that the financiers are not put to undue inconvenience and loss in case the registered owner commits default in payment of instalments or of other terms and conditions of the hire- purchase agreement, lease deed or hypothecation deed. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also submits that the entry can be effected at any time after the registration of the vehicle. He submits that the 2nd and 3rd respondents in fact played fraud on the petitioner by not producing the hire-purchase agreement with the registering authority at the time of initial registration. The petitioner was under the bonafide impression that the 2nd and 3rd respondents had produced the agreement and got an entry made relating to hire-purchase agreement in the respective registration books. But, in reality, that has not been done and when vehicles were seized and the authorities were approached to make necessary entries in the registration certificate, it was found that there was no such entry. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the order dated 12-5-1998 is illegal and contrary to the rules.