Reduction in number of seats in certain vehicles does not require permission under S.52 of the Motor Vehicles Act as it does not change the 'seating capacity' in the registration certificate.

Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Jurisdiction of Registering Authority under S.52 - Summary of Acts and Sections: S.52 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - R.47, R.48 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 - S.3 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976 - R.143, R.144 of the Kerala Rules - Interpretation and application of S.52, R.47, R.48, S.3, R.143, R.144 - Influence on Court's Decision: Court held that reduction in number of seats in certain vehicles does not require permission under S.52 as it does not change the 'seating capacity' in the registration certificate. Tax liability is based on the number of passengers permitted to carry in the vehicle, not the seating capacity. The court declined to express a view on the issue of refusal of application for altering seating capacity affecting revenue as it did not arise in the facts of the case.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners sought permission to alter their vehicles by reducing the seating capacity from 16 to 12 under S.52 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The registering authority rejected the applications citing loss of revenue to the government as a reason.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that reduction in number of seats in the vehicles did not require permission under S.52 as it did not change the 'seating capacity' in the registration certificate. The court declined to express a view on the issue of refusal of application for altering seating capacity affecting revenue as it did not arise in the facts of the case.
Issues: The main issue was whether the reduction in seating capacity from 16 to 12 in the vehicles required permission under S.52 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that reduction in number of seats in the vehicles did not require permission under S.52 as it did not change the 'seating capacity' in the registration certificate. The court also declined to express a view on the issue of refusal of application for altering seating capacity affecting revenue as it did not arise in the facts of the case.
Final Decision: The original petitions were dismissed, and the court held that reduction in number of seats in the vehicles did not require permission under S.52 as it did not change the 'seating capacity' in the registration certificate. The court also declined to express a view on the issue of refusal of application for altering seating capacity affecting revenue as it did not arise in the facts of the case.

Judgment :-

K.K. Usha, J.

The question that is referred for consideration of the Full Bench in these cases relates to the jurisdiction of registering authority under S.52 of the Motor Vehicles Act in the matter of granting permission for alteration of motor vehicle. In the order of reference passed by a learned single judge in O.P. Nos. 18437 & 18438 of 1996, it was observed that there is apparent conflict between the Bench decisions of this Court on this issue. Learned Singe Judge further felt that whether loss of revenue can be a reason for denying permission for alteration of the vehicles under S.52 is also an important question. When the matter came up before a Bench, the petitions were referred for consideration of a Larger Bench on the ground that there are conflicting decisions nn the issue. O.P. 4446/97 was also referred for consideration of the Larger Bench since the very same issue is raised in that petition also.

2. In O.P. Nos. 18437 & 18438 of 1996, petitioners are owners of contract carriages of Mahindra & Mahindra bearing registration Nos. KL-8/A. 505 and KL-9/A. 6559 respectively. KL-8/A. 505 was manufactured in the year 1990 having seating capacity of 16 in all (including driver). The unladen weight of the vehicle is 2030 kg. and wheel base is 265 cros. Maker's classification is Mahindra FJ 470 DS 4 2WD omni bus. As far as KL-9/A.6559 is concerned, except that it was a vehicle manufactured in 1992, all other particulars are the same. Petitioners wanted to reduce the seating capacity from 16 to 12. Ext. P1 notice dated. 28.7.1995 and 28.8.1995 respectively were given by the petitioners as contemplated under S.52 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking permission to alter the vehicles. After some correspondence and inspection of the vehicle, registering authority issued Ext. P2 order dated. 4.9.1995 to the petitioner in O.P. 18.437/96 rejecting the application for reduction of the seating capacity from 16 to 12. The reasons given are that the application for reduction of seating capacity was against law and if permission is granted, it would result in loss of revenue to the Government. Petitioner in O.P. 18438/96 was also given a reply which is produced as Ext. P2 dated. 21.9.1995. The application was rejected for the reasons that the purpose for which reduction in seating capacity is not specified in the application and that if permission is granted for reduction of seating capacity. Government will loose revenue considerably. Reference is made to a judgment of this court in O.P. 3902/ 92dt. 31.3.1992 to the effect that the owner has no right to reduce the seats of his vehicle in any manner he likes.

3. O.P. 4446/97 is filed by 15 petitioners. They are also owners of the vehicles having contract carriage permits. Except in the case of petitioners 3, 4, 5 and 15, vehicles owned by all the other petitioners had a seating capacity of 15 passengers. In the case of the above mentioned petitioners, their vehicles had seating capacity of 16 passengers. Petitioners submitted applications for permission to alter the vehicles by reducing seating capacity to 12 passengers under S.52 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Exts. P18 to P 3 2 are the orders passed by the registering authority declining the request for modification. The reason given in all these orders was identical. Referring to a Bench decision of this Court in W.A. 694/94 (Joint Regional Transport Officer, Alwaye v. K.K. Joshi, AIR 1996 Kerala 142), the authority held that even if the number of seats are reduced, seating capacity of the vehicle will continue the same. Thus, in the vehicles belonging to the petitioners, it would remain 16 and 15 as the case may be. But the authority was not inclined to accept the prayer for permission to reduce the number of seats for the reason that it would result in reduction of revenue. The vehicle having a seating capacity of 16 in all which is used as a contract carriage shall be taxed as per Entry 4 of schedule of K.M.V.T. Act, 1976. Thu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1998 Supreme(Ker) 156

Reduction in number of seats in certain vehicles does not require permission under S.52 of the Motor Vehicles Act as it does not change the 'seating capacity' in the registration certificate.

Cases Referred (3)