TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 1265X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... olding that the prototype approved by the Automotive Research Association of India (for short ARAI ) cannot be tampered with. 3. By a Circular dated 28.9.2006, the Transport Commissioner reminded the Registering Authorities of Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, hereinafter, 'M.V.Act', and required them to decline registration if it is in contravention of Section 52 of that Act. The writ petitions are filed challenging the action of the Registering Authorities concerned, refusing registration of vehicles which have been fitted with bodies on the chassis manufactured by the respective manufacturers. Such refusal has been made under Rule 126 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, for short, 'the C.M.V.Rules'. 4. The petitioner in W.P.(C).No.28702 of 2007 purchased a Medium Commercial Bus chassis manufactured by M/s.Tata Motors Ltd., of model Tata LP 1109/42-4200 MM. On building the body over the chassis in accordance with the M.V.Act, the C.M.V.Rules and the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the K.M.V.Rules'); the vehicle was produced for registration. However, on the ground that the platform of the bus is exten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 52 of the M.V.Act, which provides that no owner of a Motor Vehicle shall so alter the vehicle that the particulars contained in the certificate of registration are at variance with those originally specified by the manufacturer . As the particulars originally furnished by the manufacturers are contained in the Prototype Test Certificate (Type Approval Certificate), the authorities were alerted that any unstable construction of the body, extending the chassis, would be likely to affect the safety of the passengers as well as other road users. The Circular declared the Government's anxiety to ensure that the body of the vehicles are built in strict compliance with the specifications given by the manufacturer. 8. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the competence of the Authority under the M.V.Act and the K.M.V.Rules, to look at the stability of the body to ensure the safety of the vehicle and the passengers carried in it; as also the other road users, has to be necessarily conceded, however that, the entire confusion seems to arise from equating such stability and safety standards with the Prototype Test certification, and the measurements ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eased on alteration to 2715 Kgs.; as also noticing the changes in the measurement of the body, declined permission for such alteration. Rule 126 of the C.M.V.Rules was relied on by the appellate authority in the said case too. A learned single Judge on a consideration of Section 52 of the M.V.Act found that though read in isolation, it may appear, as no alteration was permissible under sub-section (1) even with the permission of the Registering Authority; sub-section (3) and sub-section (4) respectively detail the procedure to be followed when a motor vehicle is altered without the approval of the Registering Authority and how entries in the register maintained by the Registering Authority are to be made on such alteration. Sub-section (5) also mandated the permission of the financier for approving such alteration. Hence, it was held that alteration is not totally prohibited. This inference was held to be further fortified by Rules 96 and 103 of the K.M.V.Rules. Rule 96 provides for inspection of vehicle prior to registration and Rule 103 provides for alteration of the motor vehicle. On consideration of the above provisions, it was held that the said provisions mandated inspection ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inafter, we extract Rule 96, Rule 103 and Rule 261 of the K.M.V.Rules hereunder: 96. Inspection of vehicle prior to Registration:- (1) Inspecting Officer.- The Registering Authority, or such authority as the Government may by order appoint shall inspect the vehicle as required by section 44 of the Act. (2) Production of vehicle for inspection:- The vehicle shall be produced for inspection along with the required documents for registration, before the inspecting officer, for a comparative scrutiny of the particulars contained in the application with the physical features of the vehicle, and for ascertaining its fitness for use in public place. (3) Report of Inspecting Officer:- The inspecting officer after making modifications deemed necessary in the particulars contained in the application, shall certify therein regarding the correctness of the entries and the fitness of the vehicle: Provided that in the case of a transport vehicle, or for any other vehicle of which the body is not factory-built or a stereo-typed pattern previously approved by the registering Authority, he shall prepare and issue a measurement certificate in Form MC and a sketch showing therein th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or Regional Transport Authorities. We have not been shown any such specifications. Exhibit P4 Circular is not one issued under Rule 261 and, in any case, it makes the prototype measurements; the benchmark, which is not contemplated by the Act or the Rules. 15. On an anxious consideration of the various provisions of the M.V.Act and the Rules enacted by both the Union and the State as also the facts and circumstances existing, we are inclined to approve the decision of the learned single Judge rendered in W.P.(C).No.29946 of 2006. Evidently the M.V.Act and the Rules framed thereunder do not contemplate in all situations a body manufactured by the manufacturer who has got approval of the vehicle prototype. The statute and the Rules provide for purchasing chassis and building bodies over such chassis. The Rules, as noticed above, provide for the dimensions of the vehicle. As rightly contended by the counsel for the petitioners, if the measurements of the prototype are to be taken as the gospel, then there was absolutely no reason why Rule 93 of the C.M.V.Rules was enacted. Rule 93 definitely is not an enabling provision to make prototype certification. Form 22A, as provided under t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t instance. The M.V.Act and the Rules contemplate such approved prototype to be the core on which a body is to be built upon. Such building of bodies on the approved prototype chassis also has to conform to the provisions of the Act and the Rules to ensure the safety and road-worthiness of the vehicle, when used with the body built on it. The Registering Authority has to verify such safety and road-worthiness with reference to the specifications in the Act and the Rules as also specifications issued under Rule 261 of the K.M.V.Rules. It cannot merely go by the prototype test certification and confine its task to mechanical measurement to ensure mere dimensional conformity with the measurements as disclosed in the prototype test certification. Such an exercise, as indicated above, would result in the authority abdicating itself of the powers conferred and duties enjoined under the Act. 18. The Circular also can only be a cautioning note calling for ensuring the safety and road-worthiness of a vehicle when examined by the concerned authority. It cannot be considered to be one which lays down the rule that Registering Authorities ought to register only the vehicles satisfying the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
