The petitioner is challenging the rejection of registration of a new light goods vehicle purchased by them. The 4th respondent had rejected registration on the finding that the field officer who had inspected the vehicle reported that, over all length of the vehicle is found as 5200 mm instead of the approved length of 5020 mm in the proto-type approval of ARAI and it is clearly found that the chassis is extended by temporary fastening and the length variation is 350 mm. The 4th respondent found that there is violation of Rule 93(2) of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. It was further observed that, even if a small drilling or any fabrication is made in the chassis, it will reduce the strength of the chassis and thereby safety of the vehicle. 2. Against Ext.P2 rejection of registration the petitioner had preferred statutory appeal before the 3rd respondent. In Ext.P4 order issued by the 3rd respondent, the appeal was dismissed negativing the contentions raised by the petitioner, based on a Division Bench ruling of this court in Jayachandran V. Regional Transport Officer (2012 (4) KLT 729). It is challenging Ext.P4, this writ petition is filed.
3. Contention of the petitioner is that, there is no violation of Rule 93(2) of the CMV Rules, because the total dimension of the vehicle is much lower than what is stipulated in Rule 93. Reliance on the proto-type certificate of ARAI cannot be taken as a basis for rejecting the registration, is the contention. It is pointed out that the prototype certificate is only with respect to the chassis upon which the body is to be built and that any specification contained in the said test certificate cannot be taken as a criteria to reject registration. Placing reliance on the ruling in Jayachandran's case (supra) it is contended that Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act does not prohibit alteration, absolutely. It is held therein that any insistence that no alteration can be made under any circumstances which makes the dimensions of the vehicle different from its prototype approval, is illegal and it is beyond the powers vested on the registering authority. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, even in the case of alterations it is a matter to be considered by the registering authority as to whether such alterations are beyond the dimensions provided under Rule 93(2) or as to whether such alterations will affect the suitability and safety of the vehicle. It is contended that no such evaluation was done in the case at hand and the rejection of registration made simply observing that there is deviation from stipulations contained in the proto-type test certificate, cannot be accepted.
4. Question to be considered is as to whether the alteration of the chassis can be permitted in view of specific provisions contained in the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Section 52 of the Act provides that no owner of a motor vehicle shall so alter the vehicle that the particulars contained in the Certificate of Registration are at variance with those originally specified by the manufacturer. Proviso to Section 52 permits alteration of the vehicle to the extent of operation by different type of fuel or source of energy, subject to certain conditions stipulated therein. Sub Section 3 of Section 52 provides the procedure for entering new specifications in the certificate of Registration with respect to alternations made without approval of the Registering authority. Rule 93 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules provides that overall dimensions of Motor Vehicle shall not exceed in width and length above the stipulated dimensions. Rule 126 of the CMV Rules provides that every manufacturer of motor vehicles shall submit a proto-type of the vehicle for test by approved authorities for granting a certificate by that authority as to the compliance of the provisions of the Act and the Rules. Rule 126B(2) provides that such testing is to verify whether the vehicles conforms to the provisions of the Act or Rules or orders issued thereunder. The manufacturer of every vehicle is bound to give a certificate of road worthiness in Form 22 as provided under Rule 127. It is pertinent to note that Rule 103 of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules 1989 provides the procedure with respect to recording of alterations in a motor vehicle. It provides that the registering authority should make an inspection of the vehicle in order to satisfy that any alteration made is suitable for the said purpose. It should be ascertained as to whether any structural alteration made in a motor vehicle had resulted in the particulars contained in the Certificate of Registration as no longer accurate or as to whether the re-arrangement or alterations will not affect the particulars of registration contained in the certificate.
5. On an anxious consideration of all the above provisions, it is evident that any alteration of a motor vehicle is possible only to the extent as contemplated under Section 52 and such alteration can be permitted by the registering authority only in accordance with the procedure contemplated under Rule 103 of the KMV Rules. In the decision in Jayachandran's case it is held by this court that the body of a vehicle can be built on a chassis in accordance with provisions of the MV Act and the Rules framed thereunder and the safety of such vehicle and its road worthiness has to be assessed in accordance with the provisions of the MV Act and the Rules, by the registering authority. The assessment of safety of the vehicle or its road worthiness cannot be abdicated relying on the proto-type test certificate granted under Rule 126 of the CMV Rules. Since the Act or Rule do not provide any prescription by the manufacturer with respect to the dimensions or nature of the body that is to be built on a chassis, registration cannot be rejected on the basis that dimensions of body of the vehicles are in variance with the stipulations contained in the proto-type test certificate. It was found in the judgment in Jayachandran's case that the registering authorities are bound to ascertain and satisfy that the alterations will not affect the safety and road worthiness, and if so permit such alteration in view of Rule 103 of the KMV Rules.
6. In Ext.P4 order passed by the appellate authority it is noticed that the hon'ble Supreme Court has stayed operation of the judgment in Jayachandran's case in SLP No.13228 - 13231/2013. However this court is of the opinion that the dictum contained in Jayachandran's case do not apply on the facts of the case at hand. Here is a case where the petitioner had affected alteration on the chassis. In other words, the dimensions of the chassis itself is changed. Prohibition contained in Section 52 is to the effect that specifications of the manufacturer cannot be altered in any manner varying the particulars contained in the Certificate of Registration with those originally specified by the manufacturer. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the authorities have rejected the application for registration finding that the specifications are in variance with those mentioned in the proto-type test certificate issued under Rule 126. It is further contended that the registering authority ought to have considered the safety and road worthiness of the vehicle in approving such alteration, in exercise of power vested under Rule 103 of the KMV Rules. But it is pertinent to note that, there is a specific finding arrived in Ext.P2 to the effect that even if a small drilling or any fabrication is made in the chassis it will reduce the strength of the chassis and thereby safety of the vehicle. Finding of the appellate authority is also to the effect that, extension of the chassis is an alteration deviating from the stipulations contained in the proto-type test certificate. It cannot be contended that the authorities have failed in appreciating the safety and road worthiness, in view of the observations mentioned as above. Apart from that, this court is of the considered opinion that an alteration with respect to the chassis is not permissible in view of Section 52 as it will definitely alter the specifications provided by the manufacturer. The permissible alterations not exceeding the dimensions, contained in Rule 93, will not takes in the alterations with respect to the basic structure deviating from the specifications provided by the manufacturer, which is approved by the authorised agency under Rule 126 of the CMV Rules. The registering authority can evaluate suitability, safety or road worthiness only with respect to the dimensions of the body to be manufactured on the chassis, considering the upper limits stipulated under Rule 93(2). In this regard the dictum laid in Jayachandran's case cannot be made applicable with respect to a basic alteration deviating from the specifications of the manufacturer. The rejection of registration cannot be said as one made without consideration of the safety aspects and road worthiness. Hence this court do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned decision.
Consequently, the writ petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE Pn