Kerala High Court
K.S.Rajesh Kumar vs The Additional Registering Authority on 1 February, 2010
Author: K.Surendra Mohan
Bench: K.Surendra Mohan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 2738 of 2010(N)
1. K.S.RAJESH KUMAR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE ADDITIONAL REGISTERING AUTHORITY,
... Respondent
2. THE DEPUTY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER,
For Petitioner :SRI.O.D.SIVADAS
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Dated :01/02/2010
O R D E R
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J.
-------------------------
W.P (C) No.2738 of 2010
--------------------------
Dated this the 1st February, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner purchased a vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-11/A9007. The vehicle was originally an educational institution bus. Since the vehicle was held unfit for operation as a passenger vehicle, the petitioner purchased the same for the purpose of fitting a generator thereon for the use of the vehicle as a Cinema Outdoor Unit. He also applied for alteration of the vehicle as a Cinema Outdoor Unit. However, the request was rejected by the 1st respondent. An appeal filed against the rejection has also been dismissed by Ext.P2. According to the respondents, by altering the vehicle and converting the same into a generator van, the provisions of Sec.52 of the Motor Vehicles Act will be contravened.
2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the alteration that is contemplated would not affect the basic feature of the vehicle. The petitioner would not alter the dimensions of the chassis or its body. He was only going to fit a generator set on the vehicle. W.P (C) No.2738 of 2010 2 The said alteration, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, does not amount to alteration of its structure and is therefore permissible in law.
3. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that Section 2 (14) of the Motor Vehicles Act defines a goods carriage vehicle. Conversion of passenger vehicle into a goods carriage vehicle amounts to alteration of the basic feature thereof, which is not permissible under Rule 126 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules also. Therefore, it is contended that the rejection of the petitioner' s application was fully justified.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment of this Court in O.P. No.2637/2003 which has been produced as Ext.P3 in this writ petition. According to the counsel, this Court has held that alteration of a passenger vehicle for fixing a generator unit for the purpose of being used as a Cinema Outdoor Unit does not amount to alteration of the basic structure of the vehicle.
5. The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand relies on a decision of this Court dated 23.5.2007 in W.P (C) No.2738 of 2010 3 W.P (C) No.8836 of 2007 to contend that a different view has been taken by another Single Bench of this Court. Therefore, according to him, the matter requires the consideration of a Division Bench. It is further contended by the learned Government Pleader that there is a difference between alteration in the basic feature of the vehicle and the basic structure of the vehicle by virtue of the definitions contained in Section 2 (14) and 2 (17) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Conversion of a passenger vehicle into a goods vehicle is not permissible, it is contended.
6. I have heard Mr.O.D Sivadas, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties.
7. The facts of this case are not in dispute. It is admitted that the vehicle purchased by the petitioner is a passenger vehicle as defined in Section 2 (17) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Since the vehicle has become old, the petitioner wants to convert the same into a vehicle that can be used as Cinema Outdoor Unit by fixing a generator W.P (C) No.2738 of 2010 4 set therein. The petitioner does not seek any modification of the chassis of the vehicle or its body structure. What the petitioner wants is only to fit a generator on to its existing chassis and body. In view of the fact that the proposed alteration of the vehicle does not result in alteration of either the chassis or the structure of the vehicle, it is contended that there is no alteration in the basic structure of the vehicle. Section 52 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act reads as follows:
" 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 at variance with those originally specified by the manufacturer.
"Provided that where the owner of a motor vehicle makes modification of the engine, or any part thereof, of a vehicle for facilitating its operation by different type of fuel or source of energy including battery, compressed natural gas, solar power, liquid petroleum gas or any other fuel or source of energy, by fitment of a conversion kit, such modification shall be carried out subject to such conditions as may be prescribed:
Provided further that the Central
Government may prescribe specifications,
conditions for approval, retrofitment and other related matters for such conversion kits:W.P (C) No.2738 of 2010 5
Provided also that the Central Government may grant exemption for alteration of vehicles in a manner other than specified above, for any specific purpose."
8. It is clear from the above provisos that for the purpose of the above provision, alteration means a change in the structure of the vehicle which results in a change in its basic feature. According to the respondents, the basic feature is altered by an alteration of a passenger vehicle to a goods carriage vehicle. The above question has been considered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in O.P. No.2637 of 2003. This Court has also noticed that Stage Carriage Vehicles are produced in the form of chassis and are used as Stage Carriages after building a body on the chassis. Consequently, the details of the body built on the chassis could not be specified in the particulars specified by the manufacturer. Therefore, only an alteration of the chassis would come within the prohibition contained in Section 52 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. This Court has held as follows:-
"The alteration, which results in the change in the basic feature of the vehicle, must be concerning those in the chassis supplied by the W.P (C) No.2738 of 2010 6 manufacturer. It is common ground in the case on hand that the change will be only in the body of the vehicle and not in the chassis. Therefore, the provision under Section 52 (1) of the Act will not apply to the modification made to the body of a stage carriage."
9. In the above view of the matter, this Court has held that conversion of a passenger vehicle to a vehicle intended for use as a generator unit for Cinema Outdoor Unit is a permissible alteration. I am in respectful agreement with the above observation.
10. The learned Government Pleader has placed reliance on the decision of another Single Bench of this Court dated 23.5.2007 in W.P (C) No.8836 of 2007. That was a case in which the petitioner therein had purchased a bus with cowl, wind shield etc manufactured by Tata Motors Ltd for the purpose of using it as a stage carriage. He extended the length of the chassis frame by welding pieces to the main chassis frame made by the manufacturer. It was found that the length of the vehicle had been extended by welding additional pieces. This Court found that the alteration of the chassis of the vehicle was not permissible alteration under law. The facts of the W.P (C) No.2738 of 2010 7 said case are totally different from the facts of the present case. Therefore, I do not think that there is any conflict between the two decisions cited before me. Since the petitioner before me has not made any alteration to the chassis of the bus, the decision in W.P.(C) No.8836/2007 has no application to the facts in the present case.
11. The learned Government Pleader further submits that the alteration sought for is impermissible in view of Rule 126 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. Rule 126 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules reads as under:
"Prototype of every motor vehicle to be subject to test: On and from the date of commencement of Central Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Rules, 1993, every manufacturer of motor vehicles other than trailers and semi trailers shall 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 by that agency as to the compliance of provisions of the Act and these rules."W.P (C) No.2738 of 2010 8
12. The above rule only mandates that a manufacturer of motor vehicles other than the trailers or semi-trailers should submit the prototype of the vehicle to be manufactured by the manufacturer for test by the authorities specified in the said rule. Since the petitioner in the present case is not involved in the manufacturing activity of any motor vehicle, the said provision does not apply to this case. As noticed earlier, the petitioner has not made any alteration to either the chassis or the body of the vehicle. The further contention of the learned Government Pleader that conversion of a passenger vehicle to a goods vehicle is not permissible under Section 2 of the Act also cannot be accepted for the reason that the manufacturer has manufactured only the chassis of the petitioner's vehicle and not its superstructure. In the place of the seats meant for passengers, the petitioner is only fitting a generator, which alteration is permissible as found above.
13. In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed. Exts.P1 and P2 are quashed. The 1st respondent is W.P (C) No.2738 of 2010 9 directed to pass appropriate orders granting permission for alteration of the petitioner's vehicle No.KL11/A 9007 into a Generator Van. Orders in this regard shall be issued as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
K.SURENDRA MOHAN,JUDGE ma W.P (C) No.2738 of 2010 10 W.P (C) No.2738 of 2010 11