DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 16^th day of March, 2022

Present    :  Sri.Vinay Menon V.,  President

                :  Smt.Vidya A., Member                                                   Date of Filing: 24/10/2019 

     CC/252/2019

Krishna Praveen,

S/o.K.V.Sasidharan,

Managing Partner,

EMMARK Industries,

8/656, ‘R’, New IDA, Kanjikkode,

Palakkad  Kerala

(By Adv.N.Anoopkumar)                                             -           Complainant

                                                                                      Vs

1.Managing Director & CEO

   Hyundai Motors India Ltd.,

  Corporate Office,

  Plot No.5, 2^nd &6^th Floor,

  Corporate 1, Baani Building,

  Jasola Vihar, New Delhi – 110025

2. Managing Director,

    Grand Hyundai, 2^nd Mile,

    Palakkad-Ponnani Road,

   Kallekkad, Palakkad – 678 006                                           -           Opposite parties        

(For OP1 Adv.P.Fazil & OP2 exparte)

O R D E R 

By Sri. Vinay Menon V.,  President

1. The complainant grieves that  his car,  handed over to the second opposite party by way of sale in exchange for a  new car,  was sold by the second opposite party without effecting changes in the documents maintained at the RTO office. Consequently the complainant was charged for traffic rule violation which was perpetrated by the subsequent purchaser from the second opposite party.
2. The complainant sought for change of name in the registry and for compensation for deficiency in service.
3. Opposite party 2 remained exparte. Opposite party 1 filed version contenting that in the facts and circumstances of the case the first opposite party, manufacturer of Hyundai Cars,  was an unnecessary party. They also relied on a couple of decisions by the superior courts to legally substantiate  their pleadings.
4. The crux of the case being the subject matter of section 50 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and Rule 55 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, this Commission took the matter for summary disposal upon hearing the dispute. When the matter was called on 10/3/2022, there was no representation for either parties.  Hence, we took up the matter for orders.
5. The complainant  submitted the vehicle purchase agreement dated 20/07/2016  alongwith the memorandum of complaint  whereby the complainant has entered into an agreement with the 2^nd opposite party.  The 2^nd opposite party has purchased the complainant’s first  vehicle.
6. Relevant part of Section 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, reads as follows:

50 : Transfer of ownership :- (1) Where the ownership of any motor vehicle registered under this Chapter is transferred ,-

1. The transfer shall, - 

1. In the case of a vehicle registered within the same State  within fourteen days of the transfer, report the fact of transfer, in such form with such documents and in such manner, as may be prescribed by the  Central Government to registering authority within whose jurisdiction the transfer is to be effected and shall simultaneously send a copy of the said report to the transferee.,
2. Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

      Rule 55 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules 1989  is as follows:

55 : Transfer of ownership : -  (1) Where the ownership of a motor vehicle is transferred, the transferer shall report the fact of transfer in form 29 to the registering authorities concerned in whose jurisdiction the tranferer and the transferee reside or have their place of residence.

7. The legal principle  that there can be transfer of title by payment of consideration and delivery, but for the purposes of the Act (Motor Vehicles Act), the person whose name is reflected in the documents of the registering authority is the owner within the meaning of Section 2(30) of the Act has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its various decisions, and of late in Prakash Chand Daga V/s. Saveta Sharma & Ors. reported in  2019 (2)SCC 747.
8. A reading of the aforesaid statutory provisions makes it abundantly clear that the law casts a burden on the transferer and not the transferee of a vehicle to inform the concerned registration authorities regarding transfer of ownership of the vehicle.
9. That being so, there is no deficiency in  service on the part of the second opposite party who is the transferee herein in not intimating the fact of change of ownership of the complainant’s vehicle to the concerned RTO. 
10. The complaint, therefore, stands dismissed.    

                        Pronounced in the open court on this the 16^th  day of March, 2022.

 Sd/-

                                                                              Vinay Menon V

                                                 President

   Sd/-

Vidya.A

                    Member