IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2014/15TH ASWINA, 1936 WP(C).No. 25738 of 2014 (N) PETITIONER(S):
RAVIKUMAR K.J. AGED 47 YEARS S/O. JAYARAMAN, KALLUMADATHIL HOUSE, UNITY LANE PUNKUNNAM, THRISSUR - 680 002.
BY ADV. SRI.C.D.DILEEP RESPONDENT(S):
1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, THRISSUR CIVIL LANE, THRISSUR - 680 003.
2. THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER FOR STATE OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI. T RAMAPRASAD UNNI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-10-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
SKS WP(C).No. 25738 of 2014 (N) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT-P1- COPY OF THE SALE CERTIFICATE OF THE VEHICLE ISUZU-D-MAX SPACE CAB ARCH DECK BS-IV IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER DATED 16/09/2014.
EXHIBIT-P2- COPY OF THE TAX INVOICE OF THE VEHICLE ISUZU D MAX SPACE CAB ARCH DECK BS-IV EXHIBIT-P3- COPY OF THE TEMPORARY REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE VEHILCE DATED 16/09/2014.
EXHIBIT-P4- COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE VEHICLE ISUZU D MAX SPACE CAB ARCH DECK BS-IV EXHIBIT-P5- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 19/09/2014 PRSENTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P6- COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP (CP) NO. 20186 OF 2014 DATED 13/08/2014.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE SKS K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.25738 OF 2014 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 07th day of October, 2014
J UD G M E N T
The petitioner, owner of a “Isuzu D max Space cab”, presented his vehicle for registration as a non-transport private vehicle. The 1st respondent refused to register the same on the ground that it is a transport vehicle. The petitioner contends that the issue is no longer res integra in view of the authoritative pronouncement of this Court in Cheriyan v. Transport Commissioner [2009 (2) KLT 583].
2. In Cheriyan's case (supra) this Court had declared that with respect to vehicles which are constructed and adapted for carriage of goods and carriage of passengers, the primary aspect to be considered is the use to which it is put. It was also declared that, if the vehicle in question is a Light Motor Vehicle, then the registration ought to be granted in that category and not as a goods carriage, if it is not intended to be used as a goods carriage. It was also clarified that if at all the vehicle was used other than for the purpose for which it was registered, then it was open to the authorities to re-classify the vehicle as a Transport Vehicle. In the present case, the petitioner declares that he intends to use the vehicle for his personal needs as also for his agricultural operations. The petitioner admittedly an agriculturist and a business man has purchased the vehicle to carry on his professional activity. In the above circumstance, the definition of 'goods carriage' and 'transport vehicle' in sub sections 14 and 47 of Section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 assumes significance.
(14) “Goods carriage” means any motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use solely for the carriage of goods, or any motor vehicle not so constructed or adapted when used for the carriage of goods:
(47) “Transport vehicle” means a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an education institution bus or a private service vehicle.
3. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner sought for registration as a non-transport vehicle and the same was declined by the registering authority. Ext.P3 temporary registration certificate shows that the class of vehicle to be item No.”5” which; as per the Schedule to the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976, is a 'private service vehicle', which belongs to the category of transport vehicle as distinguished from item No.”6” “Private Service Vehicle for personal use (Non- Transport)”. The vehicle itself has a seating capacity of only two and has an open carriage to carry goods. Ext.P1 sale certificate also indicates that the class of vehicle as described by the dealer and manufacturer is “LMV Goods Carrier Truck”. The specific contention in the writ petition is that the petitioner, an agriculturist and business man, has to transport agricultural goods and other goods to and from his home. Hence, definitely the purpose for which the vehicle is intended to be put to use is carriage of goods. It is very clear that after seeking temporary registration of the vehicle as a goods vehicle, the petitioner on coming to know of the orders passed by this Court, has approached this Court with the claim of registration as a non-transport vehicle. On the facts disclosed from the averments in the writ petition Cheriyan's case (supra) is not applicable in the instant case.
The writ petition, hence is dismissed.
Sd/-
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge