On 11th August, a bench of Delhi High Court consisting of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva, in the case of Muniya Devi v. Motor Licensing Officer Burari and Anr, held that where there was a delay in applying for extension of fitness certificate solely on account of the fact that the a Suit for civil declaration of death was pending, then in that case the power should have been exercised by the Commissioner under Rule 60 for waiver of the entire penalty amount for the delay in applying for the renewal of the fitness certificate.
Facts of the case:
The present petition was filed seeking a direction to the Motor Licensing Authority to to renew the permit of Auto rickshaw of the petitioner’s husband and to transfer the same in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner further sought to waive off the penalty amount imposed on account of delay in applying for the renewal of the fitness certificate. The autorickshaw was registered in the name of the Shri Dev Narain, husband of the petitioner. She submits that Shri Dev Narain left his home on 20.11.2008 and thereafter never came back and has not been heard of since then. A Suit for Declaration for declaring the civil death of husband of the petitioner was filed before the competent court.
Contention of the petitioner:
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended the followed:
- It was submitted that petitioner informed the Motor Licencing Authority on 19.04.2016 that said Suit has been filed and accordingly requested for extension of the permit which was to expire on 05.05.2016.
- It was further contended that a decree of declaration on death was passed on 06.06.2019. Thereafter the petitioner once again approached the respondents but the same was not granted so petitioner has been constrained to approach this court.
- It was submitted the delay in applying for extension of fitness certificate occurred solely on account of the fact that the above referred Suit for declaration was pending.
- It was also submitted that the Commissioner has the power under Rule 60 of the Delhi Motor Vehicle Rules 1993 to waive of the penalty amount.
Contention of the respondent:
The following contention has been submitted by the respondent:
- The respondent in a Counter affidavit had indicated that the penalty amount of Rs. 71,200/- had to be paid by the petitioner.
- Learned counsel for the Respondent also submitted that apart from the penalty amount, petitioner would also have to pay charges to the Road Transport Authority as well as for the insurance of the vehicle.
Observation and judgement of the court:
The learned bench of the Hon’ble court observed the following:
- The explanation given by the petitioner that she was advised to await for a declaration from the competent court and as such could not apply for the extension of the fitness certificate is a reasonable explanation.
- in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the court was of the view that this is a fit case where power should have been exercised by the Commissioner under Rule 60 for waiver of the entire penalty amount for the delay in applying for the renewal of the fitness certificate.
In the view of the above the petition was allowed with a direction that the entire penalty amount is waived. However, petitioner was asked to pay the charges of the Road Transport Authority as well as have the vehicle insured and also pay the transfer charges.
Read Judgment;
source ; .latestlaws.com
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments