AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
1 paragraphs · 101 words
Lakshmana Rao, J.—The car of the petitioner was used for carrying passengers for reward under a contract for the use of the vehicle for an agreed sum and possession of the car was not transferred within the meaning of the explanation to Rule 4, Clause (iii), Madras Motor Vehicles Rules 1938. The car would therefore be a "contract carriage" as defined in Rule 4, Clause (iii) and the petitioner had no permit to use it. as a contract carriage. The conviction is therefore correct but the .fine is excessive and it is reduced to Rs. 20; otherwise this petition is dismissed.