Johnson T. George Thengumthottathil v. Registering Authority, Regional Transport Office, Ponkunnam & Transport Commissioner for State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014/18TH MAGHA, 1935** **WP(C).No. 29957 of 2013 (T)** **----------------------------** ## **PETITIONER:** ## **--------------------------** **JOHNSON T. GEORGE THENGUMTHOTTATHIL HOUSE, VENKURINJI PO, MUKKOTTUTHARA KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN 686 510.** **BY ADVS.SRI.K.V.SOHAN** **RESPONDENTS:** **----------------------------** **1. THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, PONKUNNAM PO KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN 686 506.** **2. THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER FOR STATE OF KLERALA TRIVANDRUM, PIN 695 001.** **R1-R2 BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.R. REMA** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07.2.2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No. 29957 of 2013 (T) ----------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS -------------------------------------** **EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE SALE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY T.V.SUNDARAM IYENGAR & SONS LTD., M.C.ROAD, NATTAKOM PO, OPP.GOVERNMENT POLY TECHNIC COLLEGE, KOTTAYAM, DATED 21/11/2013** **EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF TEMPORARY REGISTRATION ISSUED BY THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM, DATED 22/11/2013** **EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE RESPONDENT NO.1, DATED 29//11/2013** **EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE BROCHURE OF THE VEHICLE IS SHOWING THE DESCRIPTION OF THE VEHICLE** **EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.22181/2013, DATED 6/9/2013** **EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 24744/2013, DATED 22/10/2013** **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ARAI CERTIFICATE WITH RESPECT TO THE SUBJECT VEHICLE** **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS AUTOMOTIVE VEHICLES IS 14272 :: 2011** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL** **---------------------------------------** **TRUE COPY** **P.A TO JUDGE** **K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P(C) No.29957 of 2013 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 7[th] day of February, 2014** ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner is the owner of a Mahindra Bolero Camper 119 MDI TC NGT 520 4 WD BS3 3014 which was originally registered as a Light Motor Vehicle Goods Carriage. The petitioner contends that he does not intend to use the vehicle as a Goods Carriage transport vehicle and he purchased the same for the purpose of using it for his personal use and for his farming activities. An application dated 29.11.2013 Ext.P3 was filed for registering the vehicle as a Non-Transport Vehicle. However, the same was not considered since the categorization of the vehicle is LMV goods Vehicle and the same cannot be altered as LMV Motor Car. The petitioner contends that the issue is no longer res integra in WPC.29957/2013 : 2 : view of the authoritative pronouncement of this Court in **Cheriyan v. Transport Commissioner [2009 (2) KLT 583].** It is also contended that in similar situations, Exts.P5 and P6 judgments were passed by this Court wherein such prayer was allowed. 2. In **Cheriyan's case** (supra) this Court had declared that with respect to vehicles which are constructed and adapted for carriage of goods and carriage of passengers, the primary aspect to be considered is the use to which it is put. It was also declared that if the vehicle in question is a Light Motor Vehicle, then the registration ought to be granted in that category and not as a goods carriage, if it is not intended to be used as a goods carriage. It was also clarified that if at all the vehicle was used other than for the purpose for which it was registered, then it was open to the authorities to WPC.29957/2013 : 3 : re-classify the vehicle as a Transport Vehicle. 3. However, in the present case, the petitioner proclaims himself to be an agriculturist. He specifically avers that he intends to use the vehicle to carry “his personal luggage and agricultural tools” (sic) in Ext.P3. In the above circumstance, the definition of 'goods carriage' and 'transport vehicle' in sub sections 14 and 47 of Section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 assumes significance. (14) “Goods carriage” means any motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use solely for the carriage of goods, or any motor vehicle not so constructed or adapted when used for the carriage of goods: (47) “Transport vehicle” means a WPC.29957/2013 : 4 : public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an education institution bus or a private service vehicle. 4. Hence though the present vehicle is not a motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use, solely for the carriage of goods, the petitioner intends to use it for carriage of goods also; since the dominant use to which the petitioner intends to put the vehicle is for his agricultural activities. The definition of goods carriage refers to such use and includes it in the definition. The contention that the petitioner would not hire the vehicle for carriage of goods is irrelevant. On the contrary the said contention reveals the dominant use to which the vehicle is intended to be put, viz., the carriage of goods for the purpose of agriculture. The contention raised, based on the WPC.29957/2013 : 5 : categories listed out in the Central Motor Vehicles Rules cannot be countenanced. For one, the registration is granted as per the definition in the Act and it is trite that the rules made cannot control the provisions of the Act. Further it is to be noticed that the types and terminology of vehicles made by the Bureau of Indian Standards adopted in the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, are as indicated in Ext.P8:- “These definitions are intended for use in classifying the vehicles in the standards for specifying the technical requirements of the performance of the vehicle and its sub-assemblies.” 5. Such categorisation cannot decide the class of vehicle under which registration is granted. However, on the facts disclosed from the averments WPC.29957/2013 : 6 : in the instant writ petition and the specific case of the intended use of the vehicle; being to put it for use in farming activities, neither **Cheriyan's case** (supra) nor Ext.P5 or Ext.P6 is applicable. The writ petition, hence is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- ## **(K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE)** jma //true copy// P.A to Judge