115-NLR-NLR-V-57-M.-P.-P.-GUNAWARDENA-Appellant-and-REGISTRAR-OF-MOTOR-VEHICLES-Respondent.pdf
TOC o "1-5" h z
1956 .Present: T. S. Fernando, J.-;
M.P. P. GUXA WARDEXA, Appellant, and REGISTRAROF MOTOR VEHICLES, Respondent’
S. G. 2,655—J/. G. Colombo, 21,022
Lorry—Transfer of ownership—-Vew owner's liability for possession without rccenuelicence—Motor Traffic Act, Xo. 11 of 1051, ss. 12 (.?}. 11 (3), 25 (1) (2) (9),23 (3), 32, 216 (i), 226.-
"When a lorry is transferred by its registered owner to another person, thebenefit of the licence already issued to the transferor cannot be claimed for thetransferee. Under section 23 (9) of tho Motor Traffic Act tho new owner canavoid o prosecution for jrossessing tho lorry without a revenue licence, in con-travention of section 25 (1) of tho Motor Traffic Act, only (a) if ho has appliedfor a new licence, but has not yet had a decision made on such application, .or(b) if he has given notice of non-user. Whatever benefit he can derive from,section 32 of the Act is taken away by the provisions of section 25 (9)."
J^^-PPEAL from a judgment- of the Magistrate’s Court, Colombo.
C. D. S. Siriiccirdena, for the accused appellant.
Daya Persia, Crown Counsel,.for the Attorney-General.
Cur. adv. -cult.
May 29, 1956. T. S. Fernando, J.—
Complaint was made to the Magistrate’s Court of Colombo on 2GthOctober 1955 by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles that the appellant didon 1st December 1953 possess a lorry bearing registered numberCN 1037 for which a licence was not in force on the said 1st December 1953,thereby contravening section 25 (1) of the Motor Traffic Act, Xo. 14 of1951, an offence punishable under section 226 read with section 216 (1)of the same Act.
It is admit ted that on the date alleged in the charge, viz., 1st December1953, the appellant was the registered owner of lorry bearing numberCN 1037. By reason of the presumption created by section 25 (2) ofthe Act the appellant can therefore be said to have possessed the lorryon the day in question. Prior to the registration of the appellant oneNilaweera had been the registered owner of this lorry up to 1st December1953, on which date ho transferred its ownership to the appellant. Nila-weera had paid the licence fee in respect of this lorry up to and includingthe year 1953. It is admitted by the prosecution that the appellanthas paid the licence fee for the years 1954 and 1955, and it is not deniedby the appellant that he has failed to pay any fee in respect of the year1953 although the lorry was admittedly in his possession duringthe period 1st to 31st December 1953. • .
Counsel appearing for the appellant contends that, as the transferorhas already paid the licence fee for the year 1953, the transferee is hotin law obliged to pay any further duty in respect of the lorry in viewof the provisions of section 32 of the Act which enacts that a revenue2*
licence issued continues in force till the 31sfc of December following thedate of issue. The ben'efit of the licence issued to K’ilaweera for 1953is thus claimed for the appellant until 31st December 1953, and it isfurther contended by counsel that such benefit cannot be said to be lostunless otherwise expressly provided in Part III of the Act.
It is important to bear in mind that under the scheme for licensingof lorries contemplated in tho Motor Traffic Act no lorry licence can beissued except for a lorry the registered owner of which is the holder of apermit granted under Part V of the Act which regulates the issue ofgoods carriage permits. This requirement is not only made clear by theprovisions of section 28 (3) of the Act, but sections 12 (3) and 14 (3) whichprohibit a new owner of a registered lorry from using such lorry unlessa new revenue licence is issued in respect of such lorry only serveto strengthen such requirement. If therefore the new owner wishes touse the lorry ho must make application for a new licence for such lorry.Inasmuch, however, as possession of the lorry without a revenue licenceis, irrespective of tho user of the lorr}', itself a contravention of the pro-visions of the Act, the registered owner of a lorry can avoid a prosecutionfor such contravention only (a) if he has applied for a new licence, but hasnot j'et had a decision made on such application, or (b) if he has givennotice of non-user. This is the position to which the new owner appearsinexorably to be driven by the provisions of section 25 (9) of the Actwhich enacts that.
“ On anjr change of possession of a lorry, the possession of the lorryby the new owner shall bo deemed not to be a contravention of sub-section (1), if, but only if, he lias applied for a new revenue licence inaccordance with the provisions of section 41 and the application hasnot been finally determined, or he has given notice of a period of non-user under section 37. ”
If the new owner has not done either of the two things specified in thesub-section quoted above, it seems to’ be a clear inference that he cannotbe heard to say that he has not contravened sub-section (1).
In tho case before me it is admitted that the appellant (the new owner)had not on the date alleged in tho charge cither ajjplied for a new licenceor given notice of non-user. In these circumstances I am of opinion thatwhatever benefit the appellant could have derived from section 32 ofthe Act has been taken away by the unambiguous language of section25 (9), and the learned Magistrate had no alternative to entering averdict of guilty in the case.
Tiiat a new owner of a lorry should be compelled in law' to pay thelicence fee for a full year, irrespective of the length of the period of hispossession of the lorry during the tax j'ear, can work undue hardship onsome new owners as it certainly has done in the case of this appellant.The removal of such hardship is however a matter for the legislature andnot for a court of law' which can but interpret the law as enacted by thelegislature..
. Dor the reasons set out above this appeal is dismissed.
Appcal dismissed.