The petitioner is aggrieved with the registration of a vehicle being not transferred to his name pursuant to purchase from the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent admittedly had purchased the vehicle with finance from the 3rd respondent. The vehicle bearing Registration No. KL-9-R-6763 was sold to the petitioner by the 4th respondent; after clearing the entire dues to the 3rd respondent. However, the endorsement in the registration certificate regarding hypothecation was not cancelled. 2. In such circumstance, when the petitioner approached the respondent authority for transferring the registration, it is said to have been declined. The petitioner has produced an agreement at Ext.P2, which is a sale agreement between the 4th respondent and the petitioner. That will not be sufficient to effect the transfer of registration, since the intimation to the registering authority, about transfer of registration, has to be in the W.P.(C) No.24077 of 2013 - H 2 proper format as provided in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity, 'the MV Act”) and the Rules framed thereunder.
3. Section 51 of the MV Act has to be complied with in its entirety. With respect to the hypothecation sub-section (7) and (8) of Section 51 of MV Act, specifically provides that the applicant has to apply to the financier for no objection certificate and if the financier does not respond, the applicant has to file a declaration before the registering authority to that end. Only in such circumstance, the registering authority would be obliged to transfer the registration. However, in the present case, no such direction can be issued since the petitioner is not seen to have complied with Section 51 of the MV Act in its entirety. If the petitioner complies with Section 51 of the MV Act, then the respondent authority shall consider the application in accordance with law.
The writ petition stands closed.
SB // True Copy // Sd/-
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE P.A To Judge.