Nazar S/o Syed Mohammed Nazeem Manzil v. R.T.O., Attingal, Thiruvananthapuram; State of Kerala, represented by the Secretary to Transport Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram; Deputy Commissioner for Transports, South Zone, Thiruvananthapuram

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/29TH AGRAHAYANA 1934 WP(C).No. 13731 of 2012 (N) --------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------- NAZAR S/O SYED MOHAMMED NAZEEM MANZIL, ALANGODE P.O ATTINAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695102 BY ADVS.SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR SMT.BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN SMT.T.J.SEEMA RESPONDENTS: -------------- 1. THE R.T.O. ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695102 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FO TRANSPORTS SOUTH ZONE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695102 R1 BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI.G.GOPAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 3-8-2012, THE COURT ON 20-12-2012 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN WPC 13731/2012 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT. P1 COPY OF THE SALE CERTIFICATE DATED 13-05-2011 ISSUED BY THE POPULAR MAGA MOTORS(INDIA) LIMITED EXT. P2 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF TEMPORARY REGISTRATION OF THE VEHICLE EXT. P3 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED BY NAS AUTO GARAGE DATED 03-09-2011 EXT. P4 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO 32129 OF 2011 DATED 13-02-2012 EXT. P5 COPY OF THE CASH RECEIPT DATED 18-02-2012 EXT. P6 COPY OF THE NEW APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION DATED 21-022012 EXT. P7 COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, ATTINGAL DATED 24-02-2012 EXT. P8 COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT. P9 COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 28-03-2012 EXT. P10 COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 22-05-2012 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS NIL JJ /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE **K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. -----------------------------------------------------------W.P(C) NO: 13731 OF 2012 ----------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 20[th] December, 2012.** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner is the owner of a light goods vehicle. He had purchased the cab and chassis of a TATA - 407 HT model vehicle as per Ext.P1 sale certificate. As per Ext.P2, the vehicle was temporarily registered. Thereafter, the petitioner entrusted the same to Messrs. NAS Auto Garage for converting the same to a closed goods carriage vehicle. Accordingly, the body was constructed and as per Ext.P3 certificate of the NAS Auto Garage, it has been certified that the construction of the body is in compliance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Rules thereunder. In spite of the above, the petitioner complains that the first respondent is not registering the vehicle for the reason that the height of the body of the vehicle is not conforming to the specifications stipulated by the Central Motor Vehicles Rules. According to the petitioner, the said objection is without any substance. It is contended that more than 200 vehicles having the same very same dimensions have been granted registration throughout the State of Kerala. WPC 13731/2012 2 2. The petitioner was not issued with any order or other proceedings intimating him of the reasons, for not registering his vehicle as stated above. Therefore, the petitioner filed WP(C) 32129/2011 before this Court challenging the stand of the first respondent. In the writ petition, the first respondent contended that though the petitioner had remitted the necessary fees for registering the vehicle, he had not produced the vehicle for inspection. It was only for the said reason that the petitioner's vehicle was not registered, according to the first respondent. In view of the above contention of the first respondent, this Court disposed of the writ petition directing the first respondent to inspect the vehicle and to register the same on the petitioner producing the same for inspection and submitting a fresh application for registration. A copy of the said judgment is Ext.P4. Pursuant to Ext.P4 judgment, the petitioner produced his vehicle for inspection on 18-2-2012. The petitioner was thereupon asked to submit a fresh application for registration. Accordingly Ext.P6 application was submitted. The first respondent then deputed the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector for inspecting the vehicle. Accordingly, the vehicle was inspected and the dimensions thereof WPC 13731/2012 3 were measured. The Joint Regional Transport Officer thereafter issued Ext.P7 order refusing to register the vehicle on the ground that the dimensions of the vehicle are not in conformity with the specifications in the rules. 3. Since the petitioner was aggrieved by Ext.P7, he challenged the same by filing an appeal to the first respondent. However, by Ext.P9 order, the appeal was dismissed. The petitioner challenged Ext.P9 by filing WPC 9724/2012 before this Court. This Court directed the petitioner to file a proper appeal to the third respondent. However, as per Ext.P10 order the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the third respondent also. WP(C) 9724/2012 which was pending at the time of issue of Ext.P10 order was permitted to be withdrawn by this Court, reserving the liberty of the petitioner to challenge the said order. Accordingly, this writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P10 order of the third respondent. 4. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner's vehicle is a custom made one. The petitioner has purchased only the cowl and chassis. Thereafter, a body has been built on the chassis in accordance with the specifications contained in the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (the 'Central Rules' for short). WPC 13731/2012 4 The above fact has been certified by Messrs. NAS Auto Garage, the body builder, as evidenced by Ext.P3 certificate. Therefore, according to the counsel the application for registration of his vehicle submitted by the petitioner ought not to have been rejected. It is contended that the reasons stated in Ext.P10 for refusal to grant the registration are irrelevant and not germane to the issue that required consideration. According to the counsel, the certification of Automotive Research Association of India (ARAI) was not final. Such certification is applicable only to the production line, where vehicles are manufactured. There has been no proper application of mind by any of the authorities. Therefore, according to the counsel, Ext.P10 is unsustainable and liable to be set aside. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent. According to the first respondent, the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector had conducted an inspection of the vehicle. Thereupon it was found that the vehicle does not satisfy the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules thereunder. The overall height of the vehicle was found to exceed the maximum permissible limit of 2257mm. The overall width of the vehicle was found to exceed the maximum permissible width of 2045mm. The overall length of WPC 13731/2012 5 the vehicle was also found to exceed the maximum permissible limit of 4845mm. Apart from the above, the Inspecting Officer has reported that the original cabin of the vehicle was totally removed and another cabin was fabricated as a single unit along with the body. The body was built extending the length of the vehicle by 455mm from the front end of the chassis using angle iron frame. The front cowl and its panel are built over the newly fabricated and extended portion and the windshield glass is fixed over the fabricated frame. The above according to the first respondent is against the original design of the manufacturer and approval of the ARAI. It is also pointed out that the positioning of the windshield glass at a distance more than what has been allowed by the original design would affect the visibility of the driver and the safety standards of the vehicle. It was for the above reasons that the petitioner's vehicle was refused to be registered. 6. The Registering Authority, Attingal who had considered the petitioner's appeal found that the order of the Additional Registering Authority, Attingal was proper and therefore, rejected the petitioner's appeal. When the petitioner filed a further appeal to the third respondent, the vehicle was got inspected by a team of WPC 13731/2012 6 officers who also found that the findings of the Additional Registering Authority, Attingal was fully justified. It was for the said reason that Ext.P10 order was passed rejecting the petitioner's appeal. 7. The learned Govt. Pleader Shri.G.Gopakumar points out that Rule 92 of the Central Rules enacts a prohibition against use of a vehicle in any public place without complying with the provisions of rules contained in Chapter V. Rule 126 requires every manufacturer or importer to subject every prototype of a motor vehicle to 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 any of the other institutions mentioned in the said rule. After such testing, a certificate regarding compliance of the provisions of the Act and the Rules has to be issued. Such a certificate as stipulated by the above rule has not been issued in respect of the petitioner's vehicle. It has been found on inspection by the registering authority that the overall dimensions of the vehicle have been drastically altered. The cabin itself has been changed and the windshield has been placed at a distance, adversely affecting the safety and stability of WPC 13731/2012 7 the vehicle. It was for the said reason that registration was refused. According to the Govt. Pleader, there is no infirmity in Ext.P10 that necessitates an interference by this Court. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. Shri. S.Sanal Kumar, Advocate who appears for the petitioner on the other hand contends that alteration is permissible under Section 52 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the 'Act' for short). Rule 93 prescribes the maximum limit to which alteration could be effected to a motor vehicle. It is contended that the over all dimensions of the petitioner's vehicle is well within the maximum limit prescribed by Rule 93. The vehicle has also been duly certified by the body builder in form 22A as stipulated by the Rules. Therefore, it is contended by the petitioner that he is entitled to be granted a registration in respect of his vehicle. 8. I have heard Adv.S.Sanal Kumar who appears for the petitioner at length and Shri.G.Gopakumar the learned Govt. Pleader. I have been taken through the records of the case, the relevant provisions of law as well as decisions of this Court that are relied upon. I have considered the rival contentions anxiously. 9. Ext.P6 is the application for registration of his motor WPC 13731/2012 8 vehicle submitted by the petitioner with the documents that accompanied the same. It is not in dispute that the vehicle was duly inspected by the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector and that its dimensions were measured for the purpose of verifying whether the provisions of the Act and the Rules have been complied with. As per Ext.P7, the Additional Registering Authority, Attingal has refused to register the vehicle. The reason noted in Ext.P7 for such refusal is that, the vehicle produced for registration has in the place of its original cabin, a new cabin fabricated and integrated with its body forming a single unit. On physical verification, it is stated that, the dimensions were found to be not comparable with the approved dimensions that are certified by the Automotive Research Association of India and approved by the Transport Commissioner, Kerala. Being dissatisfied with Ext.P7, the petitioner had filed Ext.P8 appeal challenging the same. However, the appeal has been dismissed by Ext.P9. In Ext.P9, the registering authority has found that the overall height of the vehicle exceeded the overall height specified in the prototype approval certificate issued by the ARAI. Similarly the length and width of the vehicle also exceeded the dimensions as per the approval certificate. The authorities have WPC 13731/2012 9 further noted in Ext.P9 as follows:- “ The inspecting officer has further reported that the original cabin of the vehicle is totally removed and another cabin is fabricated as a single unit along with the body. This body was built by extending the length of the vehicle by 455mm from the front end of the chassis using angle iron frame. The front cowl and its panel is seen provided over the fabricated extended portion and the windshield glass is fixed over the fabricated frame. This is against the original design of the manufacturer and approval of ARAI. The positioning of the windshield glass at a distance more than allowed by the original design will affect the visibility of the driver and it will in turn affect the safety standards of the vehicle.” 10. It is clear from the above finding that according to the Registering Authority, the alteration effected by the petitioner would affect the safety of the vehicle. The above aspect is mandated to be ascertained by the Registering Authority after an inspection of the vehicle by Rule 96 of the Kerala Rules. Aggrieved by Ext.P9, the petitioner challenged the same in appeal before the third respondent. However, the said appeal has been dismissed by Ext.P10. The third respondent has caused the conduct of a fresh inspection of the petitioner's vehicle, as noted in Ext.P10. The WPC 13731/2012 10 petitioner was directed to produce his vehicle for inspection and the Motor Vehicle Inspector, Trivandrum and the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector conducted a fresh inspection of the vehicle on 30-4-2012. The objections to the manner in which the body of the petitioner's vehicle has been built have been itemized in Ext.P10. It is pointed out that the dimensions of the vehicle violates provisions of the Central Rules as well as the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 ('Kerala Rules' for short). On the basis of report of the fresh inspection conducted by the Motor Vehicle Inspector, Trivandrum also the third respondent has come to the conclusion that the findings of the authorities below were fully justified. For the above reason, the petitioner's appeal has been dismissed. 11. According to the counsel for the petitioner, since Rule 93 prescribes the maximum permissible dimensions for the alteration of a vehicle, a body builder is entitled to alter any vehicle provided the stipulated limits are not exceeded. Therefore, he claims that his vehicle ought to have been registered. However, what is important in a motor vehicle is the stability and safety of the vehicle. A vehicle that does not satisfy the test of stability and safety cannot be permitted in any public place for the reason that WPC 13731/2012 11 it would endanger the lives of not only the driver and passengers of the vehicle but also of the other users of the road or other public place. Therefore, the safety and stability of a vehicle is of paramount importance. The application for registration submitted by the petitioner has been rejected for the reason that the alterations made have adversely affected the safety and stability of the vehicle. The Registering Authority is the competent authority to examine and evaluate the above aspect and to enter a finding regarding the safety of the vehicle. I am supported in the above view by a Division Bench decision of this Court in **Jayachandran K. v. Regional Transport Officer, Trichur {2012(4) KHC 684(DB)}.** Paragraph 17 of the said decision reads as follows:- “Rule 126A also provides for the procedure by which testing agencies are empowered to conduct tests on vehicles drawn from the production line of the manufacturer to verify whether such vehicles conform to the provisions of the Rules. This indicates the essential standards for a vehicle being approved at the first instance. **The MV Act and the Rules contemplate such approved prototype to be the core on which a body is to be built upon. Such building of bodies on the approved prototype chassis also has to conform to the provisions of the Act and the Rules to ensure the** WPC 13731/2012 12 **Safety and Road-worthiness of the vehicle, when used with the body built on it. The Registering Authority has to verify such safety and road-worthiness with reference to the specifications in the Act and the Rules as also specifications issued under Rule 261 of the KMV Rules.** It cannot merely go by the prototype test certification and confine its task to mechanical measurement to ensure mere dimensional conformity with the measurement as disclosed in the prototype test certification. Such an exercise, as indicated above, would result in the authority abdicating itself of the powers conferred and duties enjoined under the Act.” (emphasis supplied) In the present case, the Registering Authority has entered a finding that the alterations made, affects the safety and stability of the vehicle. The findings of the said authority has been confirmed by the two appellate authorities also. There is absolutely no evidence or material before me to warrant a conclusion that the findings in Exts.P7, P9 and P10 suffer from any infirmity or error. Therefore, it is held that Ext.P10 does not call for any interference by this Court. Since the petitioner's vehicle does not satisfy the requirements of law, no direction to register the vehicle can also be issued. 12. Apart from the above, the petitioner has no case that the WPC 13731/2012 13 increase in height, length and width that has been effected to the chassis by the petitioner or his body builder was preceded by any research or test for the purpose of ensuring either the safety or stability of such alterations. In the absence of any such data it cannot be said that the alterations are permissible in law. A similar situation where the length of a vehicle was increased had come up for consideration of this Court in WP(C) 8836/2007. As per judgment dated 23-5-2007 a single Judge of this Court has held that such increase in length was not permissible though the alteration was within the limits, being less than what is prescribed by Rule 93 of the Central Rules. Basheer, J has summed up the position in paragraph 7 of the said judgment as follows:- “I am afraid the above contention is totally misconceived. First of all it has to be remembered that petitioner cannot be heard to say that he is entitled to tamper with the prototype approved by ARAI, which is a statutory organization. The said organization has fixed the norms or standards of various types of vehicles after conducting tests on the road under various conditions. Petitioner has no case that he has increased the length of the chassis after conducting any research or test even assuming that he has got the authority or sanction of law to WPC 13731/2012 14 do so. As mentioned earlier, the prototype was approved by a statutory authority. In that view of the matter I have no hesitation to hold that petitioner is not entitled to increase the length of the chassis by welding additional pieces to it. Rule 93(2) will not come to the rescue of he petitioner as contended by him. It is true that the above rule of the Central Rules stipulates that the overall length of a motor vehicle with rigid frame having 2 or more axis shall not exceed 12 meters. But so long as the ARAI has prescribed the maximum length of the prototype of the particular vehicle in question at 832.5cms, petitioner cannot seek shelter under Rule 93(2), on the plea that even after such increase the overall length has not exceeded the permissible limit. Similarly the contention raised by the petitioner that the registering authority is bound to issue certificate of registration since he has completed the fabrication of the body of the vehicle in conformity with the provisions contained in Chapter VII of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules cannot also be countenanced. Significantly the provisions contained in Chapter VII of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules do not deal with the overall length of the chassis and the specifications prescribed for the prototype by the competent authority. Those areas are covered by the Central WPC 13731/2012 15 Rules which the petitioner has to necessarily comply with, if he is to obtain a certificate of registration.” I am in respectful agreement with the above view. For the above reasons, this writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj /True copy/ P.S.to Judge WPC 13731/2012 16