AMBICA TUBEWELL COMPANY, JOTANA v. STATE — 1987 DIGILAW 139 (GUJ)

A. M. AHMADI, J. ( 1 ) THE short question which arises for determination is whether a drilling rig can be said be a goods vehicle within the meaning of Sec. 2 (8) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 (hereinafter called the Act ). The brief facts which are relevant to be noticed are as under. ( 2 ) THE petitioner purchased a drilling rig which came to be registered with the Assistant Regional Transport Officer Mehsana as GTF 2124 on 29/01/1970 The unladen weight of the said vehicle was stated to be 12490 Kg. Pursuant to an audit objection the weight was corrected to 4500 Kg. and a notice demanding difference in tax was issued on 5/11/1975 On 2/09/1977 the petitioner applied in Form B T. I. seeking certain alterations which request was turned down on 5th September 1977 The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the said order Annexure A to the petition preferred an appeal being Appeal No. 5 of 1977 which was heard and decided by the Director of Transport Gujarat State Ahmedabad. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the registering authority and the Assistant Regional Transport Officer Mehsana on the appeal being dismissed by the order of 7/05/1979 the petitioner preferred this petition for quashing and setting aside the orders passed by respondents Nos. 2 and 3. ( 3 ) THERE is no dispute before me that the vehicle in question is a drilling rig. Certain drilling equipments such as the drilling engine drilling rod mud pump mast etc. are mounted and fitted on the chassis of the motor vehicle to facilitate its transportation from one place to another where the said equipment is required to be operated for the purpose of boring tube-wells. The authorities below have come to the conclusion that the drilling rig equipments mounted and affixed on the chassis of the motor vehicle fall within the definition of goods within the meaning of Sec. 2 (7) of the Act and since the said equipment is transported by the vehicle from one place to another the vehicle answers the description of a goods vehicle as defined by Sec. 2 (8) of the Act. The question then is whether this view taken by respondents Nos. 2 and 3 can be sustained having regard to the provisions of the Act. The question then is whether this view taken by respondents Nos. 2 and 3 can be sustained having regard to the provisions of the Act. ( 4 ) THE Act defines a motor vehicle as any mechanically propelled vehicle adopted for use upon roads whether the power of propulsion is transmitted thereto from an external or internal source and includes a chassis to which a body has not been attached and a trailer; but does not include a vehicle running upon fixed rails or a vehicle of a special type adapted for use only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises. Counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the fact that the vehicle in question is a motor vehicle within the meaning of Sec. 2 (18) of the Act. The expression goods vehicle means any motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use for the carriage of goods or any motor vehicle not so constructed or adapted when used for the carriage of goods solely or in addition to passengers It is nobodys case that the motor vehicle in question is being used for the purpose of carriage of goods. Even Counsel for the petitioner conceded that a vehicle not constructed or adapted for use for the carriage of goods would fall within the definition of a goods vehicle if the same is used for the carriage of goods with or without passengers It is therefore necessary to consider whether the motor vehicle in question can be said to be one constructed or adapted for use for the carriage of goods ( 5 ) THE term goods as defined in Sec. 2 (7) includes live-stock and anything (other than equipment ordinarily used with the vehicle) carried by a vehicle except living persons but does not include luggage or personal effects carried in a motor car or in a trailer attached to a motor car or the personal luggage of passengers travelling in the vehicle. We will not be concerned with the latter part of the definition. For our purpose therefore goods will include live-stock and anything carried by a vehicle other than equipment ordinarily used with the vehicle. We will not be concerned with the latter part of the definition. For our purpose therefore goods will include live-stock and anything carried by a vehicle other than equipment ordinarily used with the vehicle. The contention of the respondents is that the drilling rig mounted on the chassis of the concerned motor vehicle is goods within the said meaning and since the vehicle is used for transporting the same from one place to another the vehicle can be said to be a goods vehicle within the meaning of Sec. 2 (8) of the Act. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it is pointed out that the bracketed words other than equipment ordinarily used with the vehicle mean equipment ordinarily used for the propulsion of vehicle and not equipments such as drilling engine drilling rod mud-pump mast etc fitted on the chassis of the vehicle. In other words according to the respondents equipments ordinarily used for the propulsion of a vehicle alone tall outside the definition of goods found in Sec. 2 (7) of the Act. On the other hand Counsel for the petitioner contends that these equipments have been permanently fastened to the chassis of the concerned motor vehicle and form part of the vehicle itself and cannot therefore be described as goods within the meaning on Sec. 2 (7) of the Act. The controversy therefore lies in a narrow compass namely whether the drilling equipments mounted and affixed on the chassis of the vehicle in question can be described as goods so as to brand the vehicle as a goods vehicle. ( 6 ) THE first question which comes to mind is can the vehicle fitted with a drilling rig be said to be one constructed or adapted for use for the carriage of goods ? the manufacturers had supplied a chassis and the drilling rig was mounted and fitted on that chassis later on. By mounting and fitting the drilling rig on the chassis can it be said that the vehicle was adapted for use for the carriage of goods ? When a vehicle is so altered or prepared that it becomes apt for the carriage of goods it can be said that it is adapted for use for the carriage of goods. By mounting and fitting the drilling rig on the chassis can it be said that the vehicle was adapted for use for the carriage of goods ? When a vehicle is so altered or prepared that it becomes apt for the carriage of goods it can be said that it is adapted for use for the carriage of goods. By mounting a drilling rig on the chassis of the vehicle it cannot be said that the vehicle was being constructed or adapted for carriage of goods. It is no doubt true that the chassis supplied by the manufacturer could be so prepared as to make the vehicle fit for the carriage of goods; but in the present case the petitioner had got the drilling rig mounted and fitted on the chassis for the purpose of transporting the rig from one place to another to under-take the work of boring tube-wells. The intention of the petitioner was not to prepare the vehicle for the carriage of goods but to use the vehicle as a mobile drilling rig for boring tube-wells. But the question is whether the drilling rig itself can be said to be goods within the meaning of Sec 2 (7) of the Act. Now equipments ordinarily used with the vehicle are not included within the definition of goods. Goods according to Sec. 2 (7) includes live-stock and anything carried by a vehicle other than equipment ordinarily used with the vehicle. Is the drilling rig an equipment ordinarily used with the vehicle ? Once a drilling rig is mounted on the vehicle and is more or less permanently affixed there to it travels with the vehicle and the vehicle becomes unfit for carriage of any other goods. The argument that the bracketed words have reference to equipment ordinarily used for the propulsion of the vehicle does not seem to be well-founded. If we turn to the definition of tractor in Sec. 2 (30) of the Act we find use of such a phraseology. According to that provision the term tractor means a motor vehicle which is not itself constructed to carry any load (other than equipment used for the purpose of propulsion) but includes a road-roller. It was therefore argued by Mr. According to that provision the term tractor means a motor vehicle which is not itself constructed to carry any load (other than equipment used for the purpose of propulsion) but includes a road-roller. It was therefore argued by Mr. Patel that the legislature was familiar with such a phraseology and if it intended to give a limited meaning to the bracketed words in Sec. 2 (7) of the Act it would certainly have used the same phraseology while defining the term goods. The words equipments ordinarily used with the vehicle cannot that the equipment must be permanently affixed to the vehicle and not equipment which can be easily removed. The test is whether the vehicle is proposed to be used for transporting goods from one place to another ? When we speak of transporting goods from one place to another we contemplate the loading of goods from the station of origin to the unloading of goods at the station of destination. A drilling rig which is more or less permanently affixed to the chassis of a motor vehicle cannot be said to be goods intended to be transported from one place to another in the popular sense. A Division Bench of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Gordhanbhai Ambalal Barot 1986 (1) GLR 700 : 1986 GLH 467 was required to consider the definition of goods vehicle in Sec. 2 (8) in the context of Sec. 95 (2) of the Act. After referring to the definition the Division Bench observed as under:"the goods therefore must be such goods which are put on the vehicle for its carriage and if the machinery is fixed on the vehicle in a sense that it becomes permanently attached to it it would not be goods which would place the vehicle within the definition of goods vehicle Carriage of goods implies the loading of goods at one place and its unloading at its destination of this is not so and if the goods are In the nature of something permanently fitted or fixed on the vehicle it would not satisfy the definition of goods vehicle. "these observations in my opinion clinch the issue. ( 7 ) THE High Court of Andhra Pradesh has in a group of Writ Petitions No. 1509 of 1984 and Allied matters decided on 31/12/1985 (Division Bench comprising Raghuvir and Rama Rao JJ. "these observations in my opinion clinch the issue. ( 7 ) THE High Court of Andhra Pradesh has in a group of Writ Petitions No. 1509 of 1984 and Allied matters decided on 31/12/1985 (Division Bench comprising Raghuvir and Rama Rao JJ. per: Rama Rao J.) held as under:" In the result it is declared that rig mounted vehicle cannot be considered as goods vehicle and is not exigible to tax as goods vehicle under Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. "section 2 of the Act defines various terms and expressions and clause (j) thereof incorporates by reference the connotation given in the Act for the words and expressions not adverted to in the said statute. In that case also the decision turned on the interpretation of Secs. 2 (7) and 2 (8) of the Act. It is therefore clear that the view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court is in conformity with the view expressed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court. I am bound by the view of the Division Bench of this Court and I must therefore hold that a vehicle to which a drilling rig is permanently affixed that is to say 80 affixed that it cannot easily be removed is not covered by the term goods vehicle defined in Sec. 2 (8) of the Act. ( 8 ) IN view of the above this petition succeeds. The decision of the authorities below lebelling the rig mounted vehicle to be a goods vehicle is set aside. The order of the second respondent Annexure A and the order of the third respondent Annexure C are quashed and set aside. The second respondent will consider afresh the petitioners request made in the prescribed B. T. I form in accordance with law at an early date. The rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. Rule made absolute. .