9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 487X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terest at the rate of 18 %." (3) Costs and advocate's fees such other reliefs as this Honourable Court may be pleased to grant in the circumstances of the case. 4. The parties shall be hereinafter referred to as per their status before the trial Court. 5. Briefly, the facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as under : Plaintiff nos. 2 to 5 are the partners of plaintiff no. 1 Firm registered with the Registrar of Firms at Panaji, Goa. The plaintiffs purchased a Truck Bearing No. 3386 in public auction held by defendant no. 4 on 3rd June, 1986 by paying full amount for which the plaintiffs had bidded. The said truck was registered in the name of Antonio Pereira with Directorate of Transport, Panaji and was under hire purchase agreement with Union Bank of India, Panaji branch. The said truck was seized by Customs Authorities on 30th August, 1982 on the ground that contraband was being carried in the said truck. On 11th June, 1985, the truck was confiscated in favour of Government of India. The truck was handed over to the plaintiffs 'as is where is' basis. 6. By letter dated 5th February, 1987, the Directorate of Transport was requested to register t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the trial Court having granted first relief, ought to have granted the compensation in favour of the plaintiffs inasmuch as on account of non-registration of the vehicle by defendant nos. l and 2, the plaintiffs were deprived of their right to ply the vehicle, thereby causing loss to the plaintiffs. Mr. Lotlikar further submitted that the finding by the trial Court that NOC from the bank was not required since the bank had lost its right under hypothecation agreement, has reached finality and the same cannot be disturbed in appeal and having regard to this finding, the trial Court ought to have granted relief of compensation. Learned counsel further submitted that although the plaintiffs had not led cogent evidence to prove the exact amount of compensation, the trial Court ought to have allowed the claim for compensation by granting nominal damages in view of the fact that respondent nos. 1 and 2 had failed to register the vehicle in the name of plaintiff no. 1 on the ground that taxes were due from the original owner and also on the ground that NOC from bank was not obtained. In support of this submission, Mr. Lotlikar placed reliance upon the following judgments : (i) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s made, the registering authority shall make an entry in the certificate of registration regarding the existence of the said agreement. (2) When the ownership of any motor vehicle registered under this Chapter is transferred and the transferee enters into a hire-purchase agreement with any person, the registering authority shall on receipt of an application from the parties to that agreement, make an entry as to the existence of such hire-purchase agreement in the certificate of registration. (3) Any entry made under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), may be cancelled by the registering authority on proof of the termination of the hire-purchase agreement by the parties concerned. (4) No entry regarding the transfer of ownership of any motor vehicle which is held under a hire-purchase agreement shall be made in the certificate of registration except with the written consent of the person whose name has been specified in the certificate of registration as the person with whom the registered owner has entered into a hire-purchase agreement. 17. Bare perusal of the above provisions makes it clear that when the vehicle is under hire purchase agreement, the regis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt is entitled to find out if the findings given by the trial Court, are sustainable in law. Moreover, Order XLI, Rule 33 of C.P.C. gives power to the appellate Court to pass any decree and make any order which ought to have been passed or made and to pass or make such further decree or order as the case may require. The said rule also provides that this power may be exercised by the Court notwithstanding the fact that the appeal is only as to the part of the decree and the appellate Court is entitled to exercise such power in favour of any of the respondents or parties although such respondents or parties may not have filed any appeal or objection. Thus, having regard to the above referred provisions of Civil Procedure Code, I find that the submission of Mr. Lotlikar that the above finding has reached finality is unsustainable in law. No doubt, under Section 126 of the Customs Act, once the vehicle is seized by the Customs Authorities, the vehicle stands vested in the Central Government, but this fact by itself would not be sufficient to hold that the hypothecation agreement in respect of the vehicle entered into with the financier stands terminated. If the interpretation sought t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were due, the validity of the permit of the said vehicle had become ineffective. Consequently, therefore, the plaintiffs could not have used the transport vehicle. Therefore, on this count also the claim for compensation made by the plaintiffs is unsustainable in law. 20. Indisputably, the amount of Rs. 31,934/- towards goods tax and further claim of Rs. 14,000/- towards the road tax was outstanding in respect of the vehicle when the application for transfer of the vehicle in the name of plaintiff no. 1 was made on behalf of the plaintiffs. The trial Court in the judgment in paragraph no. 36 has rightly observed that the plaintiffs ought to have paid the taxes claimed by the Department under protest. In my considered opinion, in view of the admitted position that NOC from the financier was not obtained at the time of seeking transfer of the vehicle in the name of plaintiff no. 1, no fault can be found with respondent no. 2 in not transferring the vehicle in favour of plaintiff no. 1. No doubt, the trial Court granted the relief prayer clause (1) and defendant nos. 1 and 2 are not aggrieved by the said order since there is no financial liability imposed by grant of the said r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
