SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1964 Supreme(Mad) 67

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Mr. Justice P. Kunhamed Kutti
Rupchand Fomra and seven others, In re .....In Re.
Crl. R.C. Nos. 1660 to 1667 of 1963. (Crl. R.P. Nos. 1610 to 1617 of 1963)
Decided On : 12 February 1964

Advocates:
P.V. Subramaniam, for Petitioner.
B. Sreeramulu for the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State in all the petitions.

Giving car either without permit or without obtaining certificate of fitness on hire is an offence.

Headnote:Motor Vehicles Act, 1939-Sections 38(1) and 42(1) - Offence-Without obtaining permit or certificate of fitness giving car on hire in an offence.

       

Order.-

All these Revision Cases are by one or the other member of the Fomra Family or firm and substantially relate to the same question. These petitions can, therefore, be disposed of by a common order.

The several petitioners purchased motor cars in their individual names and hired them to the Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company for stated periods stipulating a fixed monthly rent. The cars were to be used in public places; but neither permits nor fitness certificates had been obtained for any of them. Each of the petitioners was, therefore, charged firstly under section 38 (1) and secondly under section 42 (1) both read with section 112, Motor Vehicles Act 1939.

Under section 38 (1) no transport vehicle could be deemed to be validly registered unless it carries a certificate of fitness in Form-H as set forth in the First Schedule to the effect that the vehicle complies for the time being with all the requirements of Chapter V and the Rules made thereunder. Section 42 (1) prohibits the owner of a transport vehicle using or permitting the use of such vehicle in any public place save in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or countersigned by a Regional or State Transport Authority or the Commissioner authorising the use of the vehicle in that place in the manner in which the vehicle is being used. Section 112 is the penal section, and imposes, on the contraveners of any of the provisions of the Act or Rules made under the Act a fine of Rs. 100 for the first offence and Rs. 300 if he is again convicted of an offence under the Act.

The learned Sixth Presidency Magistrate, Saidapet, who tried all these cases found each of the petitioners guilty as charged and on conviction, fined each of them with a sum of Rs. 15 under each count, and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one week. The petitioners have filed these Revision Cases against the aforesaid conviction and sentence; and the question for consideration is whether in the circumstances in which the several cars were made over to the Burmah Shell Company on rent for their use, the vehicles could be deemed to be transport vehicles within the meaning of section 38 (1) and section 42 (1) of the Act.

A “Transport vehicle” as defined in section 2 clause (33) means a public set vice vehicle or a goods vehicle and ‘public service vehicle’ as defined in clause (25) means, any motor vehicle used or adapted to be used for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward and includes a motor cab, contract carnage and stage carriage.

The terms and conditions on which the Burmah Shell Company had taken over the cars appear from a letter addressed by them to the petitioners in Criminal R.C. 1665 of 1963. They are said to be the same in respect of all other cars. The registration certificate of the cars according to these conditions should contain an endorsement showing that the vehicle is in the temporary possession of the Company, Registration fees, tax and insurance premium, it paid by the petitioner initially, would be refunded by the Company, which would also refund the amounts paid for renewal of such taxes and insurance policy but the same has to be attended to by the petitioners. The petitioners have also to accept liability for all damage to the vehicle, however, sustained and have further to comprehensively insure the vehicles to include paid drivers as well. The vehicle has thus to be in the possession of the Company for the duration of the arrangement and after the expiry of the term, the petitioners have to accept it in its then condition ; but the Company will pay the petitioners for the use of each vehicle, a sum of Rs. 340 per mensem.

The argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that regard being had to the terms of the aforesaid agreement the Company, has to be deemed to be the owner for the time being, as in effect the petitioners make over the respective vehicles as chattel for the use of the Company and that even though the arrang






Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top