1. Dispute over denial of vehicle registration due to structural alterations varying from manufacturer specifications under Section 52, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and related rules. (Para 2 , 8 , 9 )
Back
Next 
2019 Supreme(SC) 31
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Arun Mishra, Vineet Saran, JJ.
Regional Transport Officer & Ors. Etc. – Appellants
Versus
K. Jayachandra & Anr. Etc. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 219-222 of 2019) (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 13228-13231 of 2013) With C.A. No. 223 of 2019 [@ SLP [C] No. 27499 of 2013]
Decided On : 09-01-2019
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Particulars in certificate of registration can be changed except to the extent of the entries made in the same as per the specifications originally made by the manufacturer.
Particulars in certificate of registration can be changed except to the extent of the entries made in the same as per the specifications originally made by the manufacturer.
Subject
MOTOR_VEHICLE_ALTERATION - ALTERATION_PERMISSIBLE
Act Referred
CENTRAL MOTOR VEHICLES RULES: R.126
KERALA MOTOR VEHICLES ACT: R.96, R.103, R.261
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT: S.52, S.27, S.28
KERALA MOTOR VEHICLES ACT: R.96, R.103, R.261
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT: S.52, S.27, S.28
Headnote
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 52 r/w Rule 92, 126, Central Motor Vehicles Rules 1989 and Rules 103 and 261, Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 – Alteration in motor vehicle – vehicle cannot be so altered that the particulars contained in the certificate of registration are at variance with those “originally specified by the manufacturer” – Alteration under the Rules is permissible except as prohibited by section 52. (Para 28)
(2012) 5 SCC 321 – Relied upon
(2009) 1 Mad.LJ 1027; (2001) 9 ALD 88 : 2009 1 ALT 507 – Cited with approval
AIR 2006 Mad. 340 – Distinguished
Facts of the case:
Circular No.7/2006 was 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.
Different Single Benches took different views: some against the circular and others in favour of the circular.
The Division Bench took the view that structural alteration is permissible as per the provisions of the Kerala Rules.
Finding of the Court:
Particulars in certificate of registration can be changed except to the extent of the entries made in the same as per the specifications originally made by the manufacturer.
Result: Appeals allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether structural alterations are permissible under state rules despite variance from manufacturer specifications or if Section 52 of the Act prohibits such alterations for public safety. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 )
3. Amended Section 52 prioritizes road safety and environment, prohibiting alterations that vary from original manufacturer specifications, with rules remaining subservient to the parent Act. (Para 12 , 13 , 20 , 21 , 32 , 33 )
4. No motor vehicle can be altered such that the particulars in the registration certificate are at variance with those originally specified by the manufacturer. (Para 13 , 27 , 32 , 33 )
5. Impugned judgment set aside and appeals allowed. (Para 34 )
6. What constitutes a prohibited alteration under Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988?
An alteration is prohibited if it results in the particulars contained in the certificate of registration being at variance with those originally specified by the manufacturer. Alteration is defined as a change in the structure of a vehicle that results in a change in its basic feature. (Para 13 , 27 )
7. Are state motor vehicle rules permissible if they allow alterations prohibited by the parent Act?
No, rules are subservient to the provisions of the Act. Any interpretation of rules that permits alterations prohibited under Section 52(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act is incorrect, as the Act's intent is to ensure road safety and environmental protection. (Para 32 , 33 )
8. What are the permissible modifications under Section 52(1) of the Act?
Modifications of the engine or its parts to facilitate operation by different fuel sources or energy, including battery, CNG, solar, or LPG, are permissible, subject to prescribed conditions and Central Government specifications for conversion kits. (Para 13 , 27 )
9. How does the court balance individual interests against public safety in vehicle construction?
The court held that legislative intent prioritizes public safety and the interests of road users. Individual or private interests, such as convenience or luxury, must give way to the larger public interest and mandatory safety rules. (Para 20 , 21 )
JUDGMENT :
Arun Mishra, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The question involved is as to the permissible alteration in a Motor Vehicle in view of the provisions contained in section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), Rule 126 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and the effect of Rules 96, 103 and 261 of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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 decl
