Judges : M.M.PAREED PILLAY,P.SHANMUGAM
Saramma - Appellant
Versus
R.T.O.Ernakulam - Respondent
Case No : O.P.No. 6990 of 1992 etc.
Decided On : 08/29/1995
Advocates Appeared :
P.M. Poulose For Petitioner Addl. Advocate General (Kurian Joseph) For Respondents
Mandamus - Vehicle Registration - S.52 of the Motor Vehicles Act - S.2(26) - S.2(29) - S.41 - R.47 - Alteration of Vehicle Classification - Tax Evasion - Misleading the Court
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to register a Tata Mobile 207 as a Light Motor Vehicle/ Passenger Vehicle, but the authorities refused, leading to multiple petitions and appeals. The vehicles in question were designed for specific purposes, and the owners sought alterations under S.52 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the vehicles could not be converted into motor cars as defined under the Act, and the alterations sought were against the provisions of the Act. The court also noted the attempt to evade taxes and the deliberate suppression of material facts by the petitioner.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the classification and alteration of the vehicles, tax evasion, and the petitioner's misleading conduct before the court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the vehicles' original specifications and intended use should be considered before any alteration. It also highlighted the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and relevant legal principles to prevent tax evasion and misuse of vehicles.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the original petitions with costs, vacated the interim orders, and dismissed the appeals against the judgment.
Shanmugam, J.
O.P.No. 6990/1992: The above Original Petition is filed praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to register the petitioner's vehicle Tata Mobile 207 as a Light Motor Vehicle/ Passenger Vehicle. The facts stated in brief are that the petitioner purchased a Tata Mobile 207 pick-up van on 11-5-1992 and approached the 1st respondent to register the vehicle as a Light Motor Vehicle/ Passenger Vehicle. It is stated that the respondent informed the petitioner that the vehicle could be registered only as a goods vehicle for her own use. Contending that the petitioner is entitled to get the vehicle registered as a Passenger Vehicle, she filed the above O.P. Pending the O.P. the petitioner obtained an interim direction in C.M.P. No. 11643/92 dated 2-6-1992 to issue temporary registration to the petitioner's vehicle as Light Passenger Motor Vehicle, if it is produced before the R.T.O. after its body is built according to the required specifications.
2. O.P.No. 14322,/1994: The petitioner in O.P.6990/92 has filed the above O.P. prayingfortheissueofawritofcertioraritoquashtheconditionimposedinExt.P3order of the 1st respondent, which stated that the alteration of the vehicle as "Sedan" type has to be made without altering the seating capacity.
3. O.P.No. 6121/1995: The petitioner in O.P.No. 6990/92 has filed the above O.P. for a direction to direct the 1st respondent to receive tax for the vehicle at the rate of five seater vehicle. The above O.P. was directed to be posted before the Division Bench as similar matters were pending before the Division Bench.
4. W.A.No. 372/1995: The above appeal is filed by the Additional Registering Authority and the R.T.O., Ernakulam against the interim order passed in C.M.P.No. 25150/94 in O.P.No. 14322/94. By the interim order the learned judge has directed the 1st respondent to allow reduction of seating capacity to the petitioner's vehicle KL-7/ C 7791 pending disposal of the above O.P.
5. W.A.No. 627/1995: Petitioner is the appellant. The Original Petition was filed praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the 1 st respondent to effect alteration in the registration certificate of the petitioner's vehicle as "Tourer" type. The learned single judge by judgment dated 27-3-1995 directed the petitioner to produce the vehicle with the altered body before the registering authority, who should inspect the vehicle and taking into consideration the nature of the body and the number of seats he should register the vehicle in the appropriate category in strict accordance with the definitions in the M.V. Act and the Rules. The appeal is directed against this judgment.
6. W.A.No. 681/1995: Petitioner is the appellant. The Original Petition was filed for a direction to register the petitioner's vehicle as a Light Passenger Motor Vehicle. The learned single judge directed the registering authority to inspect the vehicle and then classify it as per the definitions given in the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules and the circulars issued by the Government of India from time to time. The appeal is filed against flu's judgment.
7. From the facts set out above we find that the first three petitions are filed by the same petitioner and the subject-matter involved in all these matters relates to alteration of motor vehicles and interpretation of S.52 of the Motor Vehicles Act thereinafter referred to as the Act). The owners of the vehicles have purchased Tata Mobile 206 & 207. The Tata Mobile 207 range of vehicles are manufactured by M/ s. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. for two specific purposes such as goods carriages intended for carrying goods and passenger version for carrying passengers. The passenger version of "Tata Mobile 207" is designed and constructed with a cabin in the front portion for the driver and two passengers and with a passenger compartment in the rear which is suitable for passengers.
8. The technical specifications of 207 Tatamobil
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.