IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
K.T. Thomas and P. Shanmugham, JJ.
Joint R.T.O. Alwaye —Appellant
Vs.
Joshi —Respondent
Decided on : 21-12-1995
Motor Vehicles Act - Registration of Vehicles - Section 41, Section 44, Section 45, Rule 47, Rule 48
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners applied for registration of their vehicles under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Registering Authority refused registration, citing that the vehicles had a seating capacity of nine, while the applicants had shown it as seven.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the seating capacity of a vehicle is different from the actual seats provided, and the registration could have been granted by indicating the correct seating capacity in the certificate.
Issues: Discrepancy in seating capacity stated by the applicants and the Registering Authority's inspection report.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules, emphasizing that the seating capacity specified in the registration application should reflect the design and construction of the vehicle, not just the actual seats provided.
Final Decision: The court directed the Registering Authority to issue registration certificates for both vehicles by showing the correct seating capacity of each vehicle.
K.T. Thomas, Ag. C.J.—The question to be determined in these two cases is the same and hence we thought it convenient to dispose of them by this common judgment.
2. Petitioners in both cases are owners of the "Light Motor Vehicle" each and they have applied for registration of their vehicles before the Registering Authority under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'). In one case, the Registering Authority dismissed the application as per Ext. P4 order against which the applicant filed Original Petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. A learned Single Judge allowed the Original Petition and directed the Registering Authority to register the vehicle. That judgment is now being challenged by the Registering Authority in the appeal before us. The other case is the Original Petition filed by the other applicant on the ground that the Registering Authority has not passed order on his application and hence prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the Registering Authority to register the vehicle as requested by him.
3. The stand adopted by the Registering Authority in both cases is that the vehicle concerned in each case has a seating capacity of nine whereas the applicants have shown it as seven and, therefore, registration cannot be granted on such incorrect particulars furnished.
4. The vehicles in both cases are "Hindustan Diesel Trekkers" and both of them were purchased from M/s. Marikar (Motors) Ltd., Pondicherry. Both were manufactured by M/s. Hindustan Motors Ltd., Calcutta. Unloading weight and horse power of both vehicles are the same. It is not disputed before us that in the applications for registration petitioners have shown each vehicle as having seating capacity of seven excluding the driver.
5. The stand of the Registering Authority, (as could be gathered from the Writ Appeal) is the following: When vehicles are produced for inspection the Inspecting Officer reported that the vehicle has a capacity of nine seats and that two seats provided by the manufacturer were removed and its space has been kept vacant. Though the sale letter issued by M/s. Marikar (Motors) Ltd., in Form 21 states that seating capacity is seven (in all) other sale letters issued by the same Company for other identical vehicles have shown that the seating capacity is nine (in all). Even the manufacturer has described those vehicles as having seating capacity of nine. So the Registering Authority submitted that petitioners are only entitled to get the vehicles registered as nine-seater vehicles.
6. We may point out that it is not disputed before us that both vehicles were designed the same way as other "Light Motor Vehicles" manufactured by the same Company. Nor has it been disputed before us that the other Light Motor Vehicles are nine seater vehicles. But the contention is that though the vehicle was designed for providing nine seats, only seven seats have been provided in the vehicle and hence it could only be treated as a seven seater vehicle.
7. In order to appreciate the above contentions, we have to refer to the provisions dealing with grant of registration to motor vehicles etc. Chapter IV of the Act deals with registration of motor vehicles. Without registration no person shall permit the vehicle to be driven in a public place. It is the liability of the owner of a motor vehicle to cause it to be registered by a Registering Authority.
8. Section 41 of the Act deals with the procedure for registration. Sub-section (1) requires that the application for registration shall be in the prescribed form accompanied by prescribed documents. Sub-section (3) enjoins on the Registering Authority to issue the certificate of registration "in such form and containing such particulars and information". Such certificate shall specify the type of the motor vehicle "having regard to the design, construction and use of it". Section 44 of the Act confers power on the Registering Authority to require production of the vehicle before him to satis
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.