JUDGMENT

Goutam Bhaduri, J. - Heard.

2. The present petition concerns with the refusal of registration of a vehicle purchased by the petitioner under 'invalid carriage'.

3. The facts of the case are that the petitioner has purchased a Maruti Dzire Car on 04.10.2017 from the show-room having Engine No.K12MN2101522. It is contended that the petitioner being differently able person as his legs were amputated was constrained to modify the vehicle from the authorized centre at Deccan Motor Cycle & Scooter Garage, Hyderabad so as to make it suitable for him to drive. The petitioner therefore installed hand break instead of foot break and hand accelerator instead of foot accelerator through the authorized centre to suit his convenience to drive. It is further contended that the above modification was done as per the guidelines provided by the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1988) i.e. the ARAI Guidelines. After the modification, the petitioner thereafter reached to the R.T.O. to get his car registered as "invalid carriage" by submitting all the documents. Despite that the vehicle was not registered under the invalid carriage. It is further contended that the petitioner thereafter has approached to the different authorities but eventually a communication letter dated 12.01.2018 was received which purports that the vehicle so modified should have been manufactured and designed by the manufacturer itself and any deviation from it will not entitle it to be registered as a "invalid carriage".

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner along with the petitioner, who is present before the Court would submit that the petitioner had purchased the Maruti Dzire vehicle and since the petitioner is differently able because of the fact of amputation of both of his legs only the adaption was made in the vehicle and no alteration was made in the original engine or form of car i.e. the design. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the particulars of original make of engine as prescribed in the sale letter, has not been changed. He would further submit that the Maruti Dzire vehicle for the physically handicapped people are not being manufactured by the company for the economic considerations, therefore, the petitioner had no alternative except to modify the vehicle to suit his convenience. The petitioner further contends that presently the vehicle is registered under normal category and the petitioner is using the vehicle without any obstruction or problem. He has placed the reliance in the law laid down by the Madras High Court in the case of C. Paulraj Vs. Secretary Ministry of Transport Chennai, (2011) LawSuit(Mad) 4748 and would submit that under the circumstances, the petitioner would be entitled to get his vehicle registered under the invalid carriage.

5. Learned State counsel opposes the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and would submit that the requirement as was asked by the RTO by letter dated 12.01.2018 is well merited which do not call for any further interpretation. State has also filed its reply and has stated that the letter dated 12.01.2018 issued by the Assistant Transport Commissioner, Raipur enumerated certain conditions which are required to be followed to get the vehicle registered as invalid carriage. The contention of the State is that any other adoption will not bring the vehicle within the definition of invalid carriage. It is further contended on behalf of the State that any alteration in the vehicle to be made in the vehicle cannot be permitted as per Section 52 of the Act, 1988.

6. Shri B. Gopa Kumar, learned Assistant Solicitor General for the Union of India adopts the arguments advanced by learned State counsel.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents.

8. As per Annexure P-1, which is a disability certificate issued by District Medical Board, District Hospital Balod (C.G.), would show that the petitioner has suffered amputatio