A.P. Kurian vs K.M. Poulose

T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.—The appellant is the 1st defendant. The suit was filed by the 1st respondent herein claiming realisation of money which was remitted by him towards Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund. The total amount claimed is Rs. 1,85,271/- with interest.

The plaintiff''s case was that he was the owner of a bus bearing Reg. No. KRE 2309 with permit for plying the vehicle in the Paniyteli-Mattanchery route. On 25.02.1983, an agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and late Paily, the father of the 1st defendant (appellant herein) by which the bus was transferred to late Sri Paily. The plaintiff continued to be the registered owner of the vehicle as there was hypothecation of the vehicle in favour of Sundaram Finance, Chennai. After the death of Paily, the 1st defendant became the owner of the vehicle and was conducting the service. He had defaulted payment towards contribution to the Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund. Since he became the owner of the vehicle, he was liable to pay arrears. The 1st defendant as per agreement dated 25.02.1991, had also undertaken to clear of all the liabilities and make regular contribution to the Welfare Fund. Thereafter, the authorities had to initiate revenue recovery proceedings when he defaulted the payment and action was proceeded against the plaintiff for recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,85,271/-. The same is the basis of the plaint claim.

The defendants had filed a written statement. In para. 3 of the judgment, the details from the written statement have been reinstated. The defendants admitted that there was an agreement dated 25.02.1983 by which Paily purchased the vehicle. But they contended that the plaintiff refused to transfer the registration for permit in favour of Paily raising untenable contentions. Paily passed away on 30.01.1986, but before his death by agreement dated 25.02.1983 he had transferred the possession of the vehicle in favour of the 2nd defendant who never got possession of the vehicle and the service of the bus was conducted by the plaintiff himself. After the death of Paily the 2nd defendant along with the plaintiff had filed a joint petition before the Road Transport Authority for transfer of the permit of the vehicle in favour of the 2nd defendant. But the vehicle was attached and seized for recovering arrears of contribution to the Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund. This compelled the 1st defendant to approach this Court in O.P. 3142 of 1991 for getting an order to release the vehicle from Kuruppampadi Police Station and he deposited an amount of Rs. 5,000/- for releasing the vehicle. On 25.3.1991, the plaintiff and the 1st defendant executed an agreement in which the plaintiff has stated that he had no objection in releasing the vehicle to the 1st defendant and on the basis of that agreement, the vehicle was released to him also. According to the defendants in spite of the agreement, the plaintiff continued to be in possession of the vehicle and he had actual and ultimate control of the same. Reference is made to a Writ Petition filed by the 2nd defendant as O.P. No. 1148 of 1991 which was dismissed. Thereafter, the permit in favour of the 2nd defendant was cancelled. Then the defendants have filed O.S. No. 650 of 1994 before the Sub Court, Paravur for a declaration that they are the owners of the disputed bus. The said suit was dismissed as per judgment dated 31.10.2003. According to the defendants as the plaintiff continued to be the owner of the vehicle and was in control of the same, he is liable to pay the arrears.

4 issues were framed by the court below as evident from para. 6 of the judgment. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the plaintiff. But Exts. A1 to A12 were marked on the side of the plaintiff. DW 1 was examined and Exts. B1 and B2 were marked on the side of the defendants. After assessing various materials, the court below came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs sought for.

We heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant Sri Ranjit Thampan and the learned counsel for the respondent Sri Vinod Vallikappan. The court below relied upon Ext. A11 judgment, wherein it was held that the 1st defendant was liable to payment of arrears of contribution to the welfare fund. Ext. A10 judgment in O.P. 3142/1991 was also relied upon. Exts. A1 to A4 are the notices under which the plaintiff remitted various amounts. In the light of Ext. A5 agreement, the court below found that after the demise of the father, it was the 1st defendant who is liable to pay the amounts. In evidence DW 1 admitted the execution of Ext. A6 agreement dated 25.3.1991 also. In that view of the matter, the court below found that the 1st defendant/appellant who is liable to pay arrears of contribution to the Welfare Fund is answerable to the plaintiff. It was found that the 2nd defendant has no connection with the vehicle.

In the light of the above factual scenario, we are of the view that the appellant is not entitled to succeed. The agreements have been proved in evidence and there is also evidence to show that welfare fund dues have been paid by the plaintiff. After the demise of the father, the liability is cast upon the appellant and he was unable to wriggle out of the situation also. Ext. A10 judgment of this Court, in a proceedings between the parties had held that the plaintiff had no liability to pay the arrears. We find no reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment.

Accordingly the appeal is dismissed without costs.