S. Biju vs The Registering Authority and The Deputy Transport Commissioner

K. Vinod Chandran, J.—The petitioner is aggrieved by the non registration of the vehicle on the ground that the body built on the chassis does not conform to the safety standards as prescribed by the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The petitioner''s application was rejected as per Ext.P3 by the Original Registering Authority and the said rejection was confirmed by the Appellate Authority as is evident from Ext.P4. The rejection of the application by the Original Registering authority as also the Appellate Authority was based on the findings of an inspection report as provided under the Act and the Rules. The inspection report pointed out the following defects which were relied on by the Registering Authority to reject registration to the petitioner''s vehicle. (1). The rear most row containing 6 seats are built irrespective of the size and dimensions specified for other seats fitted in the vehicle.

(2). A luggage box is fabricate on the rear side of the vehicle and the chassis end is projecting inside the luggage boot.

(3). The rear most body portion is projecting beyond the chassis by 45 cm which is supported by angle iron and clamps.

(4). The rear most row of seat is seen supported using clamps welded to iron plates which are bolted to the rear portion of the chassis frame.

(5). The total length of the vehicle on measurement is ascertained as 830 cm irrespective of the aspect that the total length of the chassis as per the prototype approval certificate from the ARAI (AAFN 0368 dated 26.10.2010) is 760 cm.

(6). The vehicle is not provided with Emergency exit and rear window with wind screen in safety or laminated safety class since the vehicle is intended to be registered as contract carriage. Therefore the vehicle is not in conformity with the provisions contained in Rule 128 of CMVR-1989.

The rejection inter alia is on the ground that the rare overhang of the vehicle exceeded the prototype approval certificate from the ARAI and that the vehicle is not provided with the emergency exit as provided under the Rules. With respect to the overhang exceeding the prototype approval certificate, a Division Bench of this Court has in Jayachandran Vs. Regional Transport Officer, found that Rule 96 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules itself permits overhang upto 60% of the wheelbase and that the prototype approval need not be looked into in deciding the safety standards of the vehicle. In fact, the Circular referred to by the Appellate Authority and produced as Ext.P5 came up for consideration in the above cited Division Bench judgment. The Transport Commissioner''s authority to lay down a condition that the Registering Authorities ought to register only vehicles satisfying the dimension of the prototype test certificate; was found to be lacking going by the provisions of the Act and Rules. The Circular produced as Ext.P5 herein was held to be only a cautioning note calling for ensuring safety and road worthiness of the vehicle which the concerned authority has to be satisfied about. However, the safety and road worthiness necessarily are the satisfaction of the authority who registers the vehicle. 2. In the present case, the objectionable rear overhang is to an extent of 45 cm. Going by the dimensions of the vehicle as is noticed in Ext.P4, the wheelbase is 430 cm, and the overhang for the vehicle is upto 60% of the wheelbase; which in the present case would be 258 cm. Overhang even going by Ext.P4 is only 215 cm, which is within the limit provided under Rule 93(6). Hence, the said objection cannot be held to be valid. On a reading of the inspection report as has been extracted above, there are five other defects pointed out which, according to the authority, would affect the safety of the vehicle. But for enumerating the defects, nothing is referred as to how this affects the safety of the vehicle. It is also pertinent that the provision of emergency exit is as provided under Rule 128(4) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, cannot at all be exempted. The petitioner, if produces the vehicle curing the defects as to the safety standards, then, necessarily the Registering authority would have to inspect the vehicle and satisfy itself on the safety standards as also its road worthiness. Exts.P3 and P4 are set aside only for the purpose of reconsidering the registration of the petitioner''s vehicle provided the same is produced curing the defects pointed out and maintaining the safety standards. However, no objection with respect to the rear overhang as has been noticed in Exts.P3 and P4, can be raised by the Registering authority. If the vehicle is produced, the Registering authority shall, after getting an inspection report as is provided under the Act and the Rules, consider the application for registration within a period of two months thereafter.

The writ petition is disposed of.