The Gujarat High Court observed that the object of section 31 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is only for collection of tax.
Himatbhai Laxmanbhai Ognaja, the petitioner has filed a petition with a prayer to quash and set aside the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot in Criminal Revision Application and has requested to direct the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to hand over the custody of muddamal vehicle being goods carrier vehicle viz. Mahindra & Mahindra Bolero Pick-up to the petitioner.
The petitioner, by way of a sale agreement, had purchased muddamal vehicle being goods carrier vehicle viz. Mahindra & Mahindra Bolero Pickup bearing registration (“muddamal vehicle”) from respondent No.3. The petitioner has lodged an FIR against one Pravinbhai Shamlabhai Sambad for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”), wherein it was alleged that the accused had taken the muddamal vehicle from the petitioner for trial under the pretext that he intended to purchase the muddamal vehicle.
The muddamal vehicle was hypothecated with AU Small Finance Bank Limited i.e. respondent No.4 herein and the petitioner has paid Rs.6 lakh towards the loan by way of instalments and thereafter the petitioner had received the possession of the muddamal vehicle. Thus, based on such oral agreement and alleged notarized contract/agreement dated 01.09.2020, the present petitioner received the possession of the muddamal vehicle and since then the petitioner has become the owner of the muddamal vehicle and has possession of the same.
Further, the Notary before whom the contract was executed has also substantiated the fact of execution of the contract. Further, as per the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act, the vehicle is required to be handed over to the purchaser as he is the absolute owner of the vehicle and the Court should ignore the registration certificate and alleged seller having no right, title or interest after pocketing the money.
It was stated that the object of section 31 of the Motor Vehicles Act is only for collection of tax. Further, various documents show that the delivery and possession of the vehicle were with the present petitioner and ownership and possession wereproved.
Merely because ownership of the motor vehicle is not transferred is not a ground to refuse the legitimate claim of the present petitioner. In view of the above, he has requested to allow the present petition.
A single bench of Justice Hasmukh D Suthar observed that the petitioner is not a registered owner of the vehicle and has failed to prove his ownership as regards he has purchased the vehicle and paid loan instalments also to respondent No.4 – Finance Company and except bare words, the petitioner is not having any evidence even to prove the said fact that he had made the payment towards the instalment of loan for the muddamal vehicle.
Further, the trial Court is directed to decide the question of ownership of the muddamal vehicle without being influenced by any of the observations made by the Revisional Court in Criminal Revision Application No.61/2023 while deciding the ownership and possession.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscanpremium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
