Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. In all these writ petitions common questions of law are involved and hence, therefore they are decided by a common judgment.

2. The question that arises for consideration in all these writ petitions is whether any permission of the authorities is required for reducing the seating capacity in the contract carriage vehicles.

3. The factual matrix in the nutshell is that the petitioners are owning the Light Motor Vehicles having seating capacity of more than 6 excluding the driver. In some cases, the petitioners have purchased the vehicles from the manufacturers which are having seating capacity of more than 6 passengers excluding the driver. They intend to run the vehicles as contract carriages and also under All India Tourist Taxi Cabs Permits under Section 88(9) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The stand of the petitioners is that they have effected necessary adoptions in the seating arrangement by reducing the seating to 6 excluding the driver so as to give better tourist facilities and that they may be permitted to adopt the seating capacity of 7 in all to run under all India Tourist Motor Cab Permits or contract carriages as the case may be. Some of the applications: were rejected by the authority stating that it was neither permissible nor advisable to reduce the seats and it is against the prototype brought out by the manufacturer as approved by the competent authority. The authorities also relied on the instructions of the Transport Commissioner who directed not to permit the alterations involving structural changes until the Report from the ARIE is received.

6. The learned Government Pleader on the other hand contends that change of seating capacity amounts to structural changes which is not permissible under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. Secondly also he submits that by reducing the seats taxi cabs and the omnibuses are reduced to motor car, and the taxes which are payable as a taxi cab and omnibuses are quite different than that of motor cab and in order to avoid the payment of tax to the Government, the petitioners have devised an ingenious method of seeking conversion with reduced capacity of passengers. Therefore, he submits that the action of the respondents is quite justified and no interference is called for.

9. The question that falls for consideration is whether it is open for the petitioners to seek the reduced capacity of the vehicle for the purpose of plying as All India Tourist motor cabs or contract carriages. All the vehicles possessed by the petitioners are admittedly having the seating capacity of more than 7 in all. Therefore, they fall either in the definition of maxicab or omnibus which indicate that the said vehicles are permitted to carry more than 6 passengers excluding the driver and the petitioners altered the seating arrangements in such manner as to accommodate not more than 6 passengers excluding the driver. By this they submit that when the vehicles is adapted to cany 6 passengers excluding the driver it shall fall within the definition of motorcab and therefore they must be permitted to run with the capacity of not more than 6 passengers excluding the driver for hire or reward. There is no dispute that the capacity of the vehicles as certified by the manufacturer is more than 6 passengers excluding the driver. But, according to the petitioners, they intend to reduce the capacity of the motor vehicles so as to fall within the definition of motorcab. Under Section 52 of the Act, the alteration of the vehicles is not permissible when the particulars contained in the certificate of registration would become inaccurate when the alteration is made. But, such alteration is permissible with the approval of the authority. In the instant cases, the authorised seating capacity is more than 6 passengers excluding driver. It is to be noted that no structural changes in the vehicle are effected nor the prototype or basic features of the vehicle are changed. It is only a readjustment of the seating arrangement so as to accommodate less number of passengers with more comforts. Number of seats in a vehicle has no relation to the seating capacity. When the inbuilt seating capacity is kept intact and only the number of seats are reduced below the seating capacity it cannot be understood as changing the structure of the vehicle. Even the alteration of vehicle is permissible under Section 52 of the Act. A maxicab is allowed to carry more than 6 passengers and not more than 12 passengers excluding the driver for hire or reward. Similarly the omnibus is allowed to carry more than six passengers excluding the driver. If maxicab is permitted to carry more than 6 passengers excluding the driver and if it is adapted and the seating arrangements are made in such a fashion as to accommodate only 6 passengers excluding the driver, the adaption or conversion cannot be said to be contrary to Section 52 of the Act, or can it be said that the structural changes are affected.

10. Identical issues came up before the Kerala High Court for consideration. In Joint Regional Transport Officer v. K.K. Joshi, AIR 1992 Ker 142, the petitioners were owners of light motor vehicles applied for registration of their vehicles before the registering authority. The application was rejected for the reason that the applicant has shown the seating capacity of their vehicles in their applications as 7 which according to the registering authority is incorrect. The vehicle was designed by the company as 9 sealer and the sitting arrangement was made by the owners so as to accommodate the 7 in all. The Division Bench referring to the provisions contained under Section 41, 44 and 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rule 47 and 48 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 Read with Form 20 prescribed application for registration came to the conclusion (seating capacity) of the vehicle is different from actual seats provided in that vehicle. The seating capacity would depend upon the design, Horse Power and unladen weight and other allied factors. The Division Bench further held that there will not be any change in the seating capacity even if the owner provided one seat having seating capacity of 20. In the application for registration what was required to be stated is not the actual seats provided in the vehicle, but the seating capacity. Under those circumstances, the Division Bench held that even though there was a mistake in the application submitted by the petitioners who has shown the number of seats provided in the vehicle, the Court directed the registering authority to issue registration certificate in respect of those vehicles showing the correct seating capacity of each vehicle. In Radhamani v. Joint Regional Transport Officer, AIR 1997 Ker. 85, the question came up for consideration was whether reduction of certain number of seats in the case of motor vehicles which are classified as omnibuses, truckers or LMV light motor vehicles having seating capacity varying 9 to 10 including driver, would amount to alteration in motor vehicle coming under Section 52 of the M.V. Act, 1988. The vehicles, with respect to which the Bench was concerned were having bodies built by manufacturer with fixed seating capacity. The Bench took the view, after referring to the provisions of the Act and Rules, including Rule 103 of Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 that the entry in Item No. 13 of the Registration Certificate relates only to seating capacity and not to the actual number of seats provided in the vehicle. Their Lordships took the view that sub-clause (a) of Clause (2) of Rule 103 deals with structural alteration requiring change of particulars noted in registration certificate. Sub-clause (b) which deals with re-arrangement of seats, can apply only to vehicles seating capacity of which has not been fixed by the manufacturer. The certificate has no relevance as far as vehicles manufactured with photo type having fixed seating capacity. Therefore, their Lordships came to the conclusion that alteration of the vehicle contemplated under the Rules, does not take in addition or reduction of seats in a vehicle having seating capacity fixed by the manufacturers. It was also held that if, by addition of seats, there is any change in the unladen weight of the motor vehicle exceeding it by 2% of the weight entered in the certificate of registration, permission under Section 52 would be required. The aforesaid judgments of the Division Bench and some other decisions of the Division Bench were referred to the Full Bench by the learned single Judge on the ground that there was conflict of decisions between the Bench decisions and they have to be solved by the Larger Bench. The Full Bench again reconsidered the decisions of the Division Benches on the subject including the decisions referred to above. While holding that there was no conflict of decisions; upheld the decisions reported in K.K. Joshi 's case (supra) and Radhamani's case (supra). The Full Bench further held at para 17 as follows: