Case: REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER Vs. K. JAYACHANDRA ETC

The Central Government has framed the rules called Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 (for short ?the Central Rules?) in exercise of the power conferred under section 27 of the Act, and in exercise of powers conferred under Section 28 of the Act, the Kerala Government has framed the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ?the Kerala Rules?). The validity of Circular No.7/2006 issued by the Transport Commissioner, Kerala to all the Registering Authorities stating that the body of the vehicle constructed in violation of the prototype test certificate and which was not built in strict compliance of the specifications given by the manufacturer are to be denied the registration. Pursuant thereto the Regional Transport Authorities did not grant permission to certain motor vehicles in view of the provisions contained in section 52 and the Circular. As such several writ petitions came to be filed in the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam.In Writ Petition (C) No.29946 of 2006 decided on 16.1.2007 by the learned Single Judge it was held that Rule 126 of the Central Rules does not fetter the powers of the Regional Transport Authorities to intelligently exercise their discretion in terms of the Kerala Rules, in particular Rules 96, 103 and 261; whereas a contrary view was taken by another Single Judge vide order dated 23.5.2007 in Writ Petition (C) No.8836 of 2007 and it was observed that the alteration in derogation of prototype test in terms of Rule 126 of the Central Rules cannot be approved.Writ Petition (C) No.28702 of 2007 for quashing Circular No.7/2006 and the order passed on 3.7.2007 declining registration was filed.Writ Petition (C) Nos.1323 of 2010 and 1468/2010 were filed with respect to the denial of registration by the Registering Authorities as the body built over the chassis extended by a length of 15 cms. beyond the chassis which was not adhering to the specifications given by the manufacturer of the vehicle.Writ Petition (C) No.274 of 2012 was filed by the owner of the vehicle to question denial of registration in view of the aforesaid rule and the Circular. Yet another Writ Petition (C) No.274 of 2012 was filed against the refusal to grant registration of a vehicle which was re-modelled as a ‘recovery vehicle? altered in an unauthorised manner by cutting the chassis of the vehicle by one feet at the rear end which was not in conformity with the prototype test in terms of Rule 126 of the Central Rules.In view of the conflict in judgments in Writ Petition (C) No.29946 of 2006 and Writ Petition (C) No.8836 of 2007 regarding the issue of alteration whether alteration is permissible at variance with the manufacturer?s specification contained in the prototype test certification, the matter was referred to a Division Bench of the High Court. The High Court by the common judgment passed in the writ petitions came to the conclusion that structural alteration is permissible as per the provisions of the Kerala Rules. The view taken by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (C) No.29946 of 2006 has been upheld hence the appeals have been preferred in this Court. This Court has stayed the operation of the impugned judgment and order on 16.4.2013. Considering the importance of the matter notice was issued to the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways through its Secretary, and Mr. K.V . Viswanathan, learned senior counsel was appointed as amicus curiae to assist the Court.It is apparent from the factual matrix of Writ Petition (C) No.28702 of 2007 that it was a case of medium commercial bus chassis. The registration was declined on the ground that the platform of the bus was extended to a distance of 37 cms. and the body was having an extension of 39 cms. from the extreme rear end of the chassis. The vehicle had an extended length of 39 cms. The technical specifications of model TATA bus chassis have specified length of 757.5 cm. After the body was built, it had a total length of 796.5 cm.Similarly, in Writ Petition (C) No.1323 of 2010 and Writ Petition (C) No.1468 of 2010, the body was built over the chassis extended by 15 cm. beyond the chassis. In Writ Petition (C) No.274 of 2012 the vehicle was re- modeled as a recovery vehicle by cutting the chassis of the vehicle by one foot at the rear end. In Writ Petition (C) No.29946 of 2006, the unladen weight of the vehicle before alteration was 2315 kg. and the same had been increased on alteration to 2715 kgs. Besides, there were changes in the measurement of the body which resulted in declining the permission for registration. In Writ Petition (C) No.8836 of 2007, the length of the chassis of the vehicle as per prototype was 832.5 cm. but after building the body it was found to have been extended to 885 cm.

Court's reasoning:
17. The Division Bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment has opined that alteration is not totally prohibited. More so, in view of Rules 96 and 103 of the Kerala Rules, the Registering Authority is competent to consider roadworthiness and safety of the vehicle and it cannot be rendered a mechanical exercise. It is not only to verify as to whether the measurement conforms to the prototype test etc. The Rules provide for the dimensions of the vehicle. Rule 93 is not an enabling provision to make prototype certification. Rule 47(1)(g) of the Central Rules contemplates on road-worthiness certificate in Form 22 from the manufacturers and in Form 22A from the bodybuilders for applying for registration of the motor vehicles. The body can be built on a chassis in compliance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The manufacturer or the authorities specified under Rule 126 do not provide for any prescription as to the dimensions or nature of the body that is to be built on the chassis. The writ petitions have been allowed and orders passed by the Registering Authorities have been quashed.It has been observed that the Rules deal in minute details with the construction and maintenance of the vehicle. Rules also deal with the safety of other users on the road. If some individual interest is likely to suffer, such individual interest must give way to the larger public interest.It has been observed by the High Court of Madras that an alternation in the vehicle is not permissible which may be at variance with the particulars contained in the certificate of registration which contains vital particulars of the vehicle and the permissible changes or modifications and which do not result in change in the basic feature, need not be considered as alternation within the meaning of section 52 of the Amended Act.The decision in the case of K.S. Rajesh Kumar v. The Additional Registering Authority of Kerala High Court delivered on 1.2.2010 has also been referred to wherein the question of alteration in the vehicle came up for consideration. The passenger vehicle was purchased as defined in section 2(17) of the M.V . Act. The petitioner wanted to convert the same into the vehicle that could be used as a cinema outdoor unit by fixing a generator set therein. The Court held that the petitioner has not made any alteration to either the chassis or the body of the vehicle as the manufacturer has manufactured only the chassis of the vehicle and not its superstructure. In place of the seats meant for passengers, the petitioner was fitting only a generator which alteration was permissible. There was no violation of the provisions of section 52.The decision in Mohd. Javeed v. Union of India & Ors. (2001) 9 ALD 88 = 2009 1 ALT 507  has also been referred by the learned amicus curiae. In the said case chassis were changed. The Court held that the chassis is the base frame of a motor vehicle and no doubt is an important feature of the vehicle. Whether the change of the chassis would amount to change in the structure of the vehicle. The replacement became necessary on account of the accident. There was no other change in the structure of the vehicle. It was held that section 52(3) enables the owner of the vehicle to replace the engine of the vehicle but the factum of replacement has to be reported to the Authority within 14 days. On the same analogy, the Court held that the chassis was changed by the manufacturer with the approval of the insurance company and the bank and change became necessary due to the damage caused to the chassis owing to the accident. Thus the refusal of registration was held to be bad in law and set aside. In fact, there was no change of chassis except the replacement in the said case.In our considered opinion the Division Bench in the impugned judgment of the High Court of Kerala has failed to give effect to the provisions contained in section 52(1) and has emphasized only on the Rules. As such, the decision rendered by the Division Bench cannot be said to be laying down the law correctly. The Rules are subservient to the provisions of the Act and particulars in certificate of registration can also be changed except to the extent of the entries made in the same as per the specifications originally made by the manufacturer. Circular No.7/2006 is also to be read in that spirit. Authorities to act accordingly.