Skip to main content

MVD officials can seize vehicle records: HC

he Kerala high court on Thursday clarified that motor vehicles department (MVD) officials have the power to seize records of a vehicle that is modified or altered from its original specifications. However, such power should be used only in exceptional circumstances, the court said.
Justice V Chitambaresh issued the clarification after considering a petition filed by the MVD through government pleader K A Sanjeetha pointing out that any MVD officer has the power to seize or take copies of vehicle records if he believes any offence under the Motor Vehicles Act has been committed as per section 213(5)(d). Moreover, the Motor Vehicle Rules of 1989 further states that MVD officers can exercise the powers and perform the duties assigned to them under the Act, it was contended.
Top Comment

The Roman Catholic Church has the largest number of followers of all denominations and religions, and yet her teachings and doctrines can be clearly exposed as being false. So many sincere people hav... Read More
Veera Pulavar
SEE ALL COMMENTSADD COMMENT
Clarifying its judgment of March 1 this year, the court said, "The officers of the motor vehicles department as empowered by the state government in this behalf shall have the power to seize any register or document. The same shall be resorted to only if the officer considers it relevant in respect of an offence under the Act and in exceptional circumstances."
The court's judgment on March 1, on a petition filed by Francis M C, had said that there was no provision in the Act or the rules for MVD officers to retain the certificate of registration of a vehicle that has been altered or modified. The Act only enables the officers to seize the licence of the vehicle driver, the court had said.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

MACT - Permanent disability - calculate - compensation - Supreme Court - Part 2

1) C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376 2) R. D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 3) Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467 4) Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. - 2010(10) SCALE 298 5) Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567) 5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following : Pecuniary damages (Special Damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising : (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of amen

Distinction between “Loss to the Estate” and “Loss of Estate”

A subtle but fundamental distinction between “Loss of Estate” and “Loss to the Estate” was discussed in Omana P.K. and others v. Francis Edwin and others (2011 (4) KLT 952). This Judgment was challenged before the Apex Court, which has now dismissed the Appeal. The question raised in this case, was whether a certain sum which the dependants received as compensation for untimely death of Judgment debtor in a motor accident is attachable in Execution Proceedings. In this case, Justice Thomas P. Joseph speaking for the Kerala High Court had held the following (relying on The Chairman, A.P.S.R.T.C, Hyderabad vs. Smt. Shafiya Khatoon and Others) Capitalized value of the income spent on the dependents, subject to relevant deductions, is the pecuniary loss sustained by the members of his family through his death. The capitalized value of his income, subject to relevant deductions, would be the loss caused to the estate by his death. In other words, what amount the dependents would have got le

Full & Final payment - No dues certificate - end of contract

Whether after the contract comes to an end by completion of the contract work and acceptance of the final bill in full and final satisfaction and after issuance a `No Due Certificate' by the contractor Supreme Court of India Supreme Court of India R.L. Kalathia & Co. vs State Of Gujarat on 14 January, 2011 Author: P Sathasivam Bench: P. Sathasivam, B.S. Chauhan IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3245 OF 2003 R.L. Kalathia & Co Appellant(s) Versus State of Gujarat .... Respondent(s) JUDGMENT P. Sathasivam, J. 1) This appeal is directed against the judgment and final order dated 07.10.2002 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat whereby the High Court set aside the judgment and decree dated 14.12.1982 passed by the Civil Judge, (S.D.), Jamnagar directing the State Government to pay a sum of Rs.2,27,758/- with costs and interest and dismissed the Civil Suit as well as cross objections filed by the a