Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(xvii) Letter No. J:CNPR:592/578 dated 15.3.86 informing the Assistant Director Cardamom Board, Cochin confirming the receipt of DD for NC cowl and chassis and Roplas Hirider Body.

(xviii) Letter No. RA/VC/63/86 dated 19.6.86 from M/s Ranchi Automobiles. Ranchi to the party for supply of one number NC-640 with directions to send the chassis for Hirider fitment at Pune.

(vi) The Preventive Officers also visited Central Sales Office of the party at Bombay. On enquiry, the Deputy General Manager (Marketing) clarified that NC and FJ Range of vehicles had the harder rear spring. The CJ Range is relatively with a softer rear spring. NC & FJ ranges of chassis are basically designed for commercial use i.e. transport of goods. No evidence in the form of purchase order etc. was, however, produced for verification.

It is also noted that while giving vehicle specification for ND 640 Cowl & Chassis in their promotional literature, M & M have not disclosed the fact of shock absorbers being used in NC vehicles. However, the specification in the similar literature for CJ 640 Jeep gives the details regarding front and rear shock absorbers. Shri B R Sule. Managing Director and Shri K.S.C. Parthasarthy, Deputy General Manager (R & D) in their statement dated May, 10 and 11, 1988 respectively have stated that the basic designing features of NC 640 and CJ 640 are identical. The party has however promoted the vehicle 640 as Jeep for the transport of persons. In this connection while comparing the vehicle specification of CJ 640 and NC 640 vehicles. V. R. D. E., Ahmednagar has stated that the only difference as per given specification are that the later model of vehicle does not have shock absorbers. According to opinion furnished by V. R. D. E., Ahmednagar the vehicles for transport of persons have soft springs and shock absorbers which distinguishes it from the vehicle for the transport of goods. As NC 640 has shock absorbers and soft springs, therefore, it appears to have been designed for transport of persons.

These features make this vehicle unsuitable for transport of passengers.

Sd/-

Head of Mech. Engg. Department.

Bombay 10th May, 1988.

21. The Assistant Collector sought opinion from "The Automotive Research Association of India" whose report appears at page 223 of the paperbook. They have categorically stated most of the vehicle manufacturers use the same basic design on chassis both for bus and for truck applications. They also state that progressive springs are an improvement over the 'rigid springs'. The full text of the report is extracted:

Today most of the Indian-vehicle manufacturers use the same basic design of chassis for both bus and truck applications. In the heavier class of passenger carrying vehicles longer lengths are permitted by the RTOs in the certain areas. It is only abroad that the design consideration for passenger carrying vehicles are clearly different such as pneumatic suspension, integral body construction and rear engine (in the heavier class), etc, However, these, still, are in the experimental stage in bur country.