Requirement For Financer To Approach Registering Authority For Certificate Of Registration U/S 51(5) Motor Vehicles Act Is Directory: Calcutta HC
The Calcutta High Court ruled that Section 51(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which requires the financier to approach the Registering Authority if the registered owner fails to provide the certificate of registration when a vehicle is taken over due to loan default, is directory rather than mandatory.
The Court was hearing a Writ Petition against the impugned order passed by the R.T.A., Tamluk, Purba Medinipur.
The bench of Justice Rai Chattopadhyay perused Section 51 of the Motor Vehicle Act and observed, “The very carefully selected word “may” as appears therein, renders the said provision as directory and not a mandatory provision of the law. Therefore, in an appropriate case, the requirement of the financer approaching the registering authority with the plea, of the registered owner not providing it with the certificate of registration, in case of the vehicle being taken over by the financer due to default of the registered owner, may also be dispensed with.”
Advocate Monoj Kr. Mondal appeared for the Appellant and Advocate Ritoban Sarkar appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts-
The Writ Petitioner purchased the vehicle at an auction after the original owner defaulted on a loan from the respondent bank. Following arbitration, the bank sold the vehicle and transferred the title to the petitioner. The Petitioner then sought to register the vehicle with the relevant authority but faced inaction. The Court directed the respondent to consider the registration request. The Order of the Court is under challenge in the present Writ Petition.
The Court noted that Section 51(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act has provided that the financer of the vehicle has to satisfy the registering authority to have taken possession of the vehicle from the registered owner owing to his default, under the provisions of the said agreement and that the registered owner refuses to deliver the certificate of registration or has absconded.
The Court said that the basic ingredient for the application of a provision of Section 51(5) is not attracted as the financer/respondent bank has not complained about non-receipt of the certificate of registration, upon recovery of possession of the vehicle from the erstwhile defaulter registered owner.
The Court observed, “the petitioner or the respondent bank cannot be compelled to take steps for due adherence to the said provision of law, that is, under section 51(5) of the said Act. The financer having taken possession of the vehicle and having not complained about any non-receipt of the certificate of registration from the erstwhile registered owner and also having already sold and delivered the possession thereof to the petitioner by dint of an order of the Arbitrator, – compliance by it, of the provision under Section 51 (5) of the said Act, would actually be redundant and a futile exercise.”
The Court said that the RTA Purba Medinipur shall be entitled to take up the issue of registration of the petitioner’s vehicle in the absence of any requirement for compliance with provision under section 51(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned order and disposed of the Writ Petition.
Cause Title: Nandalal Verma v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Appearance:
Appellant: Adv. Monoj Kr. Mondal and Adv. Kakali Datta
Respondent: Adv. Ritoban Sarkar, Adv. Ranjit Singh, Adv. Tutul Das, Adv. Amar Singh, Adv. Ratul Deb Banerjee, Adv. Somnath Ganguly and Adv. Raja Ram Banerjee
