Motor Vehicle Registration Certificate

Manawatu Times, Volume 70, Issue 44, 21 February 1945, Page 8

Motor Vehicle Registration Certificate

CIVIL CLAIM STRESSES IMPORTANCE A lengthy reserved judgment delivered by Mr. A. Coleman S.M., at the Feilding Magistrate’s Court yesterday concerning a civil claim of unusual features drew attention to the importance attaching to the surrender of motor vehicle registration certificates on the sale or transfer of ownership of a motor vehicle. The plaintiff in the case was C. G. Fenton, of Feilding, and the defendant, Walter Fenton, of Awahuri. Plaintiff claimed for possession of a motor truck, an order directing defendant to hand over the certificate of registration and damages £lO. Reviewing the action the Magistrate recalled that counsel for defendant had

submitted that the Court had no jurisdiction to deal with the matters involved; that defendant had already delivered up possession of the truck; that the Court had no power to make an order for delivery of the certificate of registration and that the Court had no jurisdiction to order defendant to sign a transfer of ownership. It was also submitted that there is no evidence that plaintiff had suffered damage. It was stated on behalf of defendant that during the time ho had possession of the truck he had spent £2 4s on repairs and that he would not sign the transfer until he had been paid for the repairs which defendant contended had been carried out with the knowledge of plaintiff. Tho Magistrate went on to refer to earlier proceedings instituted by plaintiff at which defendant’s counsel and defendant agreed to hand over the truck and in the circumstances his Worship had entered a non-suit against plaintiff. In the present proceedings counsel for plaintiff had stated possession of the truck had been taken but defendant had failed to hand <yver the certificate of registration and refused to do so until the account of £2 4s had been paid.

“I consider defendant’s action most reprehensible and inexcusable,” said the Magistrate. A certificate of registration, though not a certificate of title, was required before any motor vehicle may be used on a public highway and the delivery of the motor vehicle without the certificate of registration was, in a sense, incomplete and precluded the vehicle from being used. The Magistrate did not appreciate an undertaking given in the Court with a mental reservation, the effect of which, was largely to whittle down the scope of the undertaking. The defendant had adopted a wrong attitude apart altogether from the breach of his undertaking. If defendant had a claim for £2 4s lie could have counter-claimed or filed a separate claim. The Magistrate was unable to make any order for the possession of the truck as it was now in the possession of plaintiff; was not within the jurisdiction of the Court to order defendant to execute in favour of plaintiff any form of transfer of ownership of the truck; and the Court was precluded from making an order for the recovery of the certificate of registration by reason of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1924, which imposed upon motor vehicle owners certain duties respecting

tho certificate of registration. With regard to the claim for damages the Magistrate said that plaintiff had been deprived of the use of the truck for about 16 weeks owing to defendant’s refusal to honour his undertaking or comply with Section 17 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1924. The Magistrate was of the opinion that plaintiff was entitled to recover damages for breach of agreement. Tho defendant knew, or must be taken to have known of his statutory obligation under Section 17 of the Act, to forward the certificate of regisration of the truck to the Registrar of Motor Vehicles with particulars of the new ow r ner. Mr. Coleman quoted extensively the law on this aspect of damages and said that he had been forced to the conclusion that a person who found himself in the position of plaintiff was not precluded from proceeding for damages against the wrongdoer, the eontravenor of Section 17 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and that it was never the intention of the legislature that the fine provided by the Act was to bo the only remedy. He accordingly found that defendant was liable in tort for damages through non-observance of his statutory obligations under Section 17 of the Act. Judgment would be for plaintiff for £5 damages and costs. At the hearing Mr. P. C. Miles appeared for plaintiff and Mr. A. M. Ongley for defendant.

Scat reservations on passenger trains by dwellers in the country districts are not readily forthcoming and it would appear from the experience of one intending passenger that country people aro not being fairly catered for. A Feilding resident who had planned to go north notified his reservation nine days before he intended to travel but this did not avail. Two clays after making the application he was informed that no reply had been received and then was later informed that no seat was available. In consequence of this he was obliged to cancel his booking arrangements for hotel accommodation. He endeavoured to book again for another date but was unable to obtain any satisfaction. His view is that the allocation for country bookings is not satisfactory.