The petitioner is a registered owner of a vehicle who assails the demand for tax made as per Ext.P5. The petitioner's contention is that he sold the vehicle bearing Reg. No. KL-2B- 1868 to the 6th respondent who in turn sold the vehicle to the 5th respondent herein. It is contended that the transfer to the 5th respondent was agreed to by the petitioner and an agreement was entered into by the petitioner and the 5th respondent as evidenced by Ext.P2; by which the 5th respondent agreed for transfer of the vehicle to his name. However, the same has not been effected. 2. In law, for transfer to be effected purchase as per Section 50(a)(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act (for brevity, 'the Act') 1988 has to be followed. The transferor also shall intimate the transfer of the vehicle, within 14 days of the transfer, in the form prescribed and in the manner prescribed by the Central Government, to the registering authority; within whose W.P.(C) No. 13318 of 2014 2 jurisdiction the registration is transfered. There is absolutely no averment as to any such transfer having been effected as per statute or the intimation having been given in the form and manner prescribed.
3. In such circumstance, at the instance of the transferor, or there can be no transfer of the vehicle in the name of the 5th respondent as per the Act. If the petitioner's contentions are based on an agreement executed between the parties, then necessarily the petitioner would have to approach the competent Civil Court. The liability of the tax due on the vehicle definitely will be on the registered owner and if the petitioner satisfies the same the petitioner would have his remedies reserved to proceed against the actual owner, who has been using the vehicle for recovery of the amounts satisfied.
With the above observations, the Writ Petition stands closed.
Sd/-
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE SB //True Copy //