2012 (11) TMI 1265 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Permissibility of alterations to vehicle bodies at variance with manufacturer's specifications.
2. Conflict between decisions in W.P.(C).No.29946 of 2006 and W.P.(C).No.8836 of 2007.
3. Validity of Transport Commissioner's Circular dated 28.9.2006.
4. Refusal of vehicle registration due to alterations.
5. Competence of Registering Authority to assess vehicle safety and road-worthiness.

Summary:

1. Permissibility of Alterations:
The primary issue is whether alterations to the vehicle body that deviate from the manufacturer's specifications in the "prototype test certification" are permissible. The judgment clarifies that while the M.V.Act and the C.M.V.Rules mandate prototype testing and certification, they do not prohibit alterations as long as the vehicle remains road-worthy and safe. Rule 126 of the C.M.V.Rules mandates prototype testing but does not restrict body construction to the prototype's exact measurements. Rule 93 of the C.M.V.Rules prescribes permissible dimensions, indicating that alterations within these limits are allowed.

2. Conflict Between Decisions:
The Division Bench addressed the conflict between the decisions in W.P.(C).No.29946 of 2006 and W.P.(C).No.8836 of 2007. The former allowed alterations with Registering Authority's certification, while the latter prohibited tampering with the prototype approved by ARAI. The Bench approved the decision in W.P.(C).No.29946 of 2006, emphasizing that alterations are not totally prohibited and must be assessed for safety and road-worthiness by the Registering Authority.

3. Validity of Transport Commissioner's Circular:
The Circular dated 28.9.2006, issued by the Transport Commissioner, reminded Registering Authorities of Section 52 of the M.V.Act, which prohibits alterations that deviate from the manufacturer's specifications. The judgment held that the Circular serves as a cautionary note but does not override the statutory provisions allowing alterations assessed for safety and road-worthiness by the Registering Authority.

4. Refusal of Vehicle Registration:
The petitions challenged the refusal of vehicle registration due to alterations. The judgment quashed the refusals, directing the Registering Authorities to consider the registration applications based on the principles outlined, ensuring the vehicles' safety and road-worthiness rather than mere dimensional conformity with the prototype.

5. Competence of Registering Authority:
The judgment affirmed the competence of the Registering Authority to assess the safety and road-worthiness of altered vehicles. It emphasized that the Registering Authority must inspect and certify the vehicle's fitness for use in public places, considering the statutory provisions and any specifications issued by the State or Regional Transport Authorities.

Conclusion:
The judgment quashed the impugned orders and directed the Registering Authorities to reconsider the registration applications, ensuring compliance with the statutory provisions and safety standards. The writ petitions were allowed with directions to complete the registration process within three months.