KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
REVISION PETITION No. 49/2018
ORDER DATED: 08.11.2019
(Against the Order in C.C. 204/2017 of CDRF, Wayanad, Kalpetta)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
SRI.T.S.P. MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI. RANJIT. R : MEMBER
REVISION PETITIONER:
The Manager, Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd., 2nd Floor, Thottathil Complex, Chulliyodu Road, Sulthan Batheri Post, Wayanad.
(By Adv. Abhishek. R.V)
Vs.
REVISION COUNTER PETITIONER:
Surendran. C.K, Padiparambu House, Chulliyode Post, Nenmeni Amsom Desom, Sulthan Bathery Taluk, Wayanad.
ORDER
SRI. RANJIT. R: MEMBER
Opposite party has filed this revision against the Order passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Wayanad in I. A. No. 157/2018 in C.C. No. 204/2017 dated 26.09.2018 whereby the Forum by its Order directed them to issue NOC to the petitioner’s/complainant’s vehicle before 03.10.2018 on condition that the petitioner shall use the NOC only for renewing the permit of the vehicle.
2. The District Forum appreciating the facts and circumstances involved and considering the fact that the validity of the permit of the petitioner’s vehicle plying as taxi ended on 12.09.2018 and for getting the premium renewed, in order to ply the vehicle, directed the opposite party to issue NOC. The direction was on condition that the NOC should be used only for renewing the permit. Challenge in the revision is against this Order.
3. Even though notice was served to the complainant/ revision counter petitioner he did not appear. We heard the counsel for the revision petitioner and perused the Order challenged in revision.
4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner urged that the process of renewal of permit of transport vehicle is governed by Sec. 81 of the M.V. Act, 1988. It has references to Sec. 51 of the Act. Under Sec. 51(6) of the M.V. Act the registered owner has to request for the NOC to the financier. Under Sec. 51(7) the financier may either issue NOC or refuse to issue the same, and it is the prerogative of the financier. The financier has every right to object the renewal of the permit as further renewal of the permit would further deteriorate the value of the hypothecated vehicle where there is a greater amount of money to be repaid by the customer. Even if the financier had denied the NOC or expressed its dissent, the RTO has all authority to consider the renewal subject to the provisions under Sec. 81(4). He further canvassed that the lower forum passed the Order without giving opportunity to the revision petitioner to file objection.
5. Special provision regarding motor vehicle subject to hire purchase agreement is covered by Sec. 51 of the M.V. Act. As per Sec. 51(6) the registered owner shall, before applying to the appropriate authority, for the renewal of the permit under Sec. 81, make an application to the person with whom the registered owner has entered into an agreement (such person referred to as the financier) for the issue of No Objection Certificate. As per Sec. 51(7), within 7 days of the receipt of the application under sub section (6), the financier may issue or refuse, for reasons which shall be recorded in writing and communicated to the applicant, to issue the certificate applied for and where the financier fails to issue the certificate and also fails to communicate it within a period of 7 days, the certificate applied shall be deemed to have been issued by the financier. As per Sec. 51(9) of the Act, on receipt of the application for renewal of the permit the appropriate authority, may subject to the other provisions of the M.V. Act in case where the financier has refused to issue the certificate applied for, after giving the applicant an opportunity of being heard, either renew or refuse to renew the permit. From the above provisions, it is clear that the registered owner has to request for NOC with the financier and if they refused to grant NOC as per Sec. 51(7) of the M.V. Act the RTO has all authority to consider the renewal, subject to his discretion, under Sec. 81 of the M.V. Act.
6. From the Order of the District Forum and from the available records, it is not clear whether the complainant/revision counter petitioner had applied under Sec. 81 of the M.V. Act to renew the permit and whether he had approached the financier under Sec. 51(6) of the M.V. Act and also that, the RTO has refused to renew the permit, on the sole ground that the NOC was not issued by the financier, or not. The District Forum did not consider the various Sections referred to above under the M.V. Act, before passing the impugned Order. Hence the direction of the District Forum is erroneous and is liable to be set aside. We do so.
7. In the above circumstances we are of the view that the District Forum shall reconsider the petition of the complainant/revision counter petitioner in I.A. No. 157/2018 and pass a reasoned order based on the principles laid down under Sec. 51(6), 51(7) and 51(9) read with Sec. 81 of the M.V. Act. The Forum is also directed to give the revision petitioner permission to file their objections and their part shall also be heard.
In the result, this revision petition is allowed. The order of the District Forum in I.A 157/2018 in C.C. No. 204/2017 is set aside. The District Forum is directed to reconsider the I.A afresh, as indicated above.
JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
T.S.P. MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER
jb RANJIT. R : MEMBER
