Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. Petitioner in C. R. P. No. 466 of 1982 is the owner of the stage carriage TNA 8689, which was stopped and checked at IW/8 K.M. stone on Palani-Coimbatore, Road at 6.30 p.m., on 263-1980, and it was found carrying six passengers in excess of the permitted seating capacity of 51; and the Registration Certificate, Insurance Certificate and the permit were not available at the time of checking. All the 57 tickets were seized and statements from the crew of the vehicle and a passenger were recorded, resulting in charge memo being issued. After securing explanation from the petitioner the Regional Transport Authority, Coimbatore held that the charge of overloading had been proved, and, therefore, under S. 60(l) of the Motor Vehicles Act, he suspended the permit for three days with an option to compound at Rs. 75/- per day. The Appellate Authority agreed with this finding resulting in this revision petition being preferred.

4. There is no dispute that 57,lickets issued by the conductor had been taken custody of. The crew of the vehicle have given a statement, along with a statement by a passenger. It has been held that, solely resting upon the statement of the crew, the charge cannot be held to be proved; because under the Rules, they are obliged to sign the check report. The statement of the passenger does not deal with overloading, but the authorities have considered as to what extent these statements could be looked into. They mainly rested their finding on the seizure of 57 tickets issued by the conductor. The plea put forth that the Checking Officer compelled the conductor to issue tickets to six unauthorised persons is quite improbable, because it is not his case that those unauthorised persons purchased tickets for distances for which they never intended to travel. It is not the claim of the petitioner that the said passenger was forced to give a statement. In his statement, he had nowhere stated that the Checking Officer had compelled the conductor to issue tickets to six unauthorised persons. Even the crew have not immediately anywhere protested that the statements had been forcibly taken froth them containing false particulars. It is because of these factors, the concurrent finding having been arrived at, there is no valid ground existing to interfere with the finding of fact about overloading of the vehicle, as charged. Yet, Mr. Manivannam learned counsel for the petitioner in C.R.P. No. 466 of 1982, would submit that, as the Regional, Transport Authority had not extended a personal hearing, the order under revision is vitiated, and this aspect is considered hereunder.

5. Mrs. Radha Gopalan, learned counsel for the petitioner in C.R.P. No. 80 of 1983, submits that the checking having taken place at a bus stop, and at a time when passengers were getting out and boarding into the bus, the charge of overloading had not been proved. The Checking Officer had seized all the 64 tickets, which were in excess of the permitted seating capacity. There was no satisfactory explanation forthcoming as to why 64 tickets should have been held by passengers, when it was checked at the bus stop. If the petitioner had carried only permitted number of passengers with tickets, out of these ticket-holders, some of their having got down, the number of ticket-holders, in the vehicle ought to have been lesser than the permitted capacity. Those who have boarded the bus, would be without tickets. If he had issued tickets to those who boarded the bus standing at the entrance, then he ought not to have issued 64 tickets, and should have confined the issue of tickets only to the extent of the number of passengers, who got out of the bus. Hence, the explanation extended having not found acceptance, by both the authorities, there is no warrant to interfere with the said concurrent finding.