Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 315 (KER)

P. K. Baiju v. Joint Regional Transport Officer

2002-05-27

R.RAJENDRA BABU

body2002
ORDER : Petitioner, the owner of a 1993 model Bajaj Tempo initially classified as an Omni Bus and later changed as a contract carriage, applied before the registering authority for conversion of the above vehicle as a Goods Carriage (delivery van). The above application was rejected by the registering authority and the order was challenged before this Court in O.P. 35749/01. This Court set aside the above order and directed the registering authority to reconsider the application for conversion afresh. The registering authority considered the same and by Ext. P9 order dt. 2-1-02 again rejected the prayer. The above Ext. P9 order rejecting the prayer for conversion of the vehicle as a goods carriage is under challenge in this O.P. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 3. The only question for consideration is whether a vehicle registered as a passenger vehicle can be allowed to be converted as a goods carriage. The petitioner"s vehicle with seating capacity of 16 in all was originally registered as a passenger vehicle on the basis of the prototype certificate. Originally it was classified as a omni bus and later it was classified as a private service vehicle. The petitioner filed an application for conversion of the vehicle as a good carriage and the registering authority rejected that prayer. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per Ext. P4 order issued by the Transport Commissioner dt. 14-6-01, conversion of the above vehicle is allowable as the basic model of both the vehicles is the same. Ext. 4 was a communication issued by the Transport Commissioner to the subordinates informing the approval of the variance of some basic models by the Automotive Research Association of India (ARAI) and the details also have been furnished in the communication. The learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that category VIII in Ext. P4 was F 307 Van Mini Bus (Basic model) and the above category would include prototypes which could be used as mini bus or delivery van and as the vehicle of the petitioner would come within category VIII and as there was no structural alteration, conversion as prayed for was allowable. P4 was F 307 Van Mini Bus (Basic model) and the above category would include prototypes which could be used as mini bus or delivery van and as the vehicle of the petitioner would come within category VIII and as there was no structural alteration, conversion as prayed for was allowable. It was further argued that the definition of "transport vehicle" under Sec. 2(47) of the Motor Vehicles Act would include a public service vehicle, goods carriage, educational institution bus or a private service vehicle, and as such conversion of a passenger vehicle as a goods carriage is allowable under law. The learned Govt. Pleader argued that the conversion of a passenger vehicle into a goods carriage is not allowable in law and in view of the amendment made to Sec. 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act, no owner of a motor vehicle shall alter the vehicle in such a way that the particulars contained in the certificate of registration are at variance with those originally specified by the manufacturer. Sec. 52(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act reads : "Alteration in motor vehicle :- (1) No owner of a motor vehicle shall so alter the vehicle that the particulars contained in the certificate of registration are no longer accurate, unless- (a) he has given notice to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction he has the residence or the place of business where the vehicle is normally kept, as the case may be, of the alteration he proposes to make; and (b) he has obtained the approval of that registering authority to make such alteration :- xx xx xx" In view of sub-sec. (1) of Section 52 as amended, no vehicle can be altered in such a way as to have variance from originally specified by the manufacturer. The above vehicle had been manufactured as a passenger vehicle. In the registration book it was classified as a omni bus having 16 seats. Later it was classified as a private service vehicle. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though it was classified as a omni bus at the initial stage, it had been altered as a private service vehicle and hence it can be varied as a goods carriage also. Later it was classified as a private service vehicle. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though it was classified as a omni bus at the initial stage, it had been altered as a private service vehicle and hence it can be varied as a goods carriage also. Omni bus and private service vehicles are passenger vehicles and the above classification is only for the purpose of ascertaining or levying the vehicle tax and it does not alter the character of the vehicle. By the change or classification as a private service vehicle from omni bus, there was no alteration to the vehicle, but it was only in the nature of the use of the vehicle for the purpose of the levy of tax. But when a passenger vehicle is altered as a goods vehicle, there is material alteration in the nature of the vehicle. It is true that category VIII in Ext. P4 would include 16 different items like omni bus, van etc. and the basic model of all those vehicles is the same. The learned Govt. Pleader submitted that each item in Category VIII is an approved prototype and registration of the vehicle can be granted only if the prototype of the vehicle had been approved in accordance with Rule 126 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules. Rule 126 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules oblige every manufacturer of motor vehicles other than trailers and semi-trailers, to submit the prototype of the vehicle to be manufactured by him for test by the Vehicle Research and Development Establishment of the Ministry of Defence of the Government of India, or Automotive Research Association of India, Pune, or the Central Machinery Testing and Training Institute (Budni) MP or the Indian Institute of Petroleum, Dehradun, and such other agencies as may be specified by the Central Government for granting a certificate of approval by that agency as to the compliance of the provisions of the Act and the Rules. After the commencement of the above rules, all the vehicles are to be approved for registration subject to the compliance of prototype test. Ext. P4 was a communication issued by the Transport Commissioner to the subordinates regarding the approval of the prototypes. Category VIII in Ext. P4 was the basic model wherein there were 16 approved items of prototypes. After the commencement of the above rules, all the vehicles are to be approved for registration subject to the compliance of prototype test. Ext. P4 was a communication issued by the Transport Commissioner to the subordinates regarding the approval of the prototypes. Category VIII in Ext. P4 was the basic model wherein there were 16 approved items of prototypes. If the passenger vehicle has to be altered as a goods vehicle, the prototype test should cover the use of the vehicle as a goods carriage also. But the prototype tests do not include the use of the same vehicle as a goods carriage and hence the alteration as prayed for cannot be allowed on the basis of Ext. P4. The learned Govt. Pleader submitted that in view of the communication No. RT11011/1/88-TAG dt. 31-7-90 issued by the Ministry of Surface Transport to all the State Transport Authorities and Regional Transport Authorities, alteration of one type of vehicle cannot be allowed unless the prototype testing also covers the use of the above converted vehicle. The above communication reads : "I am directed to say that a reference has been received in this Ministry seeking clarification as to whether the transport vehicle like a pick-up van, viz. Tata 206 (Tata mobile) can be converted into a non-transport vehicle. There have been cases where pick up vans are sought to be converted into passenger cars by making structural changes in the vehicles and applications have been received by some registering authorities from individuals to permit such changes on the ground that they come within the ambit of alteration contemplated by Section 52 of the M.V. Act. The pick-up vans and similar light commercial vehicles are manufactured after they undergo prototype tests and it is intended to be used only for the purpose for which the prototype have been tested. Unless the prototype testing also covers the use of the vehicle as a passenger car, the same vehicle cannot be altered and got registered as a passenger vehicle." This aspect was considered by a single Judge of this Court in Fr. Unless the prototype testing also covers the use of the vehicle as a passenger car, the same vehicle cannot be altered and got registered as a passenger vehicle." This aspect was considered by a single Judge of this Court in Fr. George Panakezham v. R.T.O., (1998) 2 Ker LJ 638: (AIR 1999 Kerala 133) and held (at p. 135 of AIR) : "It is categorically stated therein that unless the prototype testing also covers the use of the vehicle as a passenger car, the same vehicle cannot be altered and got registered as a passenger vehicle. The above direction of the Ministry of Surface Transport shows that prototype test should also certify the use of the vehicle. When a vehicle is manufactured and built and prototype test was conducted for the purpose of carriage of goods, the same cannot be used for carriage of passengers, unless and until it is so certified. Insistence of conduct of prototype testing is for the purpose of finding out whether a vehicle can be used for a particular purpose." This Court in Sunny Scaria v. Joint RTO, Palai, (1993) 1 Ker LT 148 held : "In Ext. P6 circular issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Surface Transport, it is made clear that pick-up vans and similar light commercial vehicles manufactured after undergoing prototype tests and intended to be used only for the purpose for which the prototype has been tested cannot be altered and got registered as passenger vehicle unless the prototype testing also covers the use of the vehicles as a passenger vehicle. The circular makes the position clear that so long as the prototype test of the petitioner"s vehicles does not cover its use as goods vehicle, it cannot be altered and got registered as goods vehicle. As the petitioners have no case that their vehicles underwent prototype test for using it as goods vehicle, their contention that the respondent went wrong in rejecting their application for conversion of the class of the vehicle cannot be accepted." I respectfully agree with the approach made by this Court in the above decision. Hence, I do not think that there is any scope for conversion of a passenger vehicle as a goods carriage unless the prototype test of the same vehicle include the conversion of the vehicle to another type. Though the basic model of van, mini bus etc. Hence, I do not think that there is any scope for conversion of a passenger vehicle as a goods carriage unless the prototype test of the same vehicle include the conversion of the vehicle to another type. Though the basic model of van, mini bus etc. under Category VIII in Ext. P4 is the same, the different items mentioned thereunder are approved prototypes under Rule 126 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules. Further, Section 52(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act does not permit any alteration of the vehicle as the particulars in the registration certificate should not be in variance with the particulars originally specified by the manufacturers. In view of Sec. 52(1) of the Act as amended, no alteration can be effected converting the passenger vehicle as a goods carriage. In view of the amendment to Sec. 52 of the Motor Vehicle Act, I do not think that a vehicle classified as "passenger vehicle" can be converted as a goods vehicle as prayed for and as such this petition cannot be allowed. In the result this O.P. is dismissed. Petition dismissed.