REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER & ORS. ETC. versus K. JAYACHANDRA & ANR. ETC. on 9 January 2019

REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER & ORS. ETC.

v.

K. JAYACHANDRA & ANR. ETC.

(Civil Appeal Nos. 219-222 of 2019)

JANUARY 09, 2019

[ARUN MISHRA AND VINEET SARAN, JJ.]

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:

s. 52 (as amended by Act 27/2000) – Alteration in motorvehicle – Permissible limit – Held: The very object of amendmentof s. 52(1) is to prohibit alteration of a vehicle – Explanation to s.52 says that “alteration” means a change in the structure of avehicle which results in a change in its basic feature – Thus, thealterations which do not change the basic features are outside thepurview of alteration – Though the vehicle has to comply with theprovisions of the Motor Vehicle Rules, the Rules have to be read assubservient to the provisions of the Act – The High Court has failedto give effect to the provisions contained in s. 52(1) and hasemphasized only on the Rules – Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989– r. 126 – Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 - rr. 96, 103 and 261.

Allowing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1. The very object of the amendment of section52(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by Act 27/2000 is to prohibitalteration of a vehicle as provided including the change of tyresof higher capacity. The amended section 52(1) has specified theextent to which vehicle cannot be altered. A reading of theprovisions makes it clear that no vehicle can be altered in a mannerwhere particulars in the certificate of registration are at variancewith those “originally specified by the manufacturer”. The provisoto sub-section (1) permits modification of the engine, or any partthereof, of a vehicle for facilitating its operation by a differenttype of fuel or source of energy including battery etc., suchmodification is permissible to be carried out subject to suchconditions as may be prescribed. The second proviso to section52(1) empowers the Central Government to prescribespecifications, conditions for approval, retro-fitment and other

179

A

B

CDE

F

G

H

Arelated matters for such conversion kits. The CentralGovernment has power to grant an exemption for alteration ofvehicles for any specific purpose. Section 52(2) authorizes a StateGovernment to issue a notification and permit any person owningnot less than 10 transport vehicles to alter any vehicle owned byhim so as to replace the ‘engine’ with an engine of the sameBmake and type, without the approval of the Registering Authority.Section 52(3) provides that where the alteration has been madewithout the approval of the Registering Authority, obviously theone which is permissible in the motor vehicle, the owner of thevehicle has to report the same within 14 days to make an entry inCthe particulars of the registration. The provisions of section 52(2),(3), (4) and (5) have to be read harmoniously. The Explanation tosection 52 says that “alteration” means a change in the structureof a vehicle which results in a change in its basic feature. Thealterations which do not change the basic features are outsidethe purview of alteration. [Para 27][199-B-G]D

2. The vehicle has to comply with the provisions of the Rulescontained in Chapter V of the Central Rules as provided in Rule92(1). Rule 92(1) has to be read as subservient to the provisionscontained in section 52 of the 1988 Act and what is prohibitedtherein to allow the same is not the intendment of the rulesEcontained in the Chapter. Various provisions in Chapter V areadditional safeguards to what is prohibited in section 52(1) thatis to say, what has been specified originally by the manufacturersand once that has been entered in the particulars in the certificateof registration, cannot be varied. No vehicle can be altered so asFto change original specification made by manufacturer. [Para32][206-F-H]

3. It is provided in Rule 126 of the Central Rules, prototypeof every type of vehicle is subject to test. The provisions of Rule126 intend for fitness of vehicle to be plied on the road by theGagencies which are specified therein. Approval and certificationof motor vehicles for compliance to these rules shall be inaccordance with the AIS: 017-2000. Rule 93 deals with overalldimensions of the motor vehicles such as width, length, height,overhang etc. No doubt about it that the vehicle has to be inconformity with the rules also but Rules cannot be so interpretedH

A

so as to permit the alteration as prohibited under section 52(1)of the Act. The alteration under the Rules is permissible exceptas prohibited by section 52. The specification of the rules wouldhold good with respect to the matters as not specifically coveredunder section 52(1) and not specified therein by manufacturer.The emphasis of section 52(1) is not to vary the “originalspecifications by the manufacturer”. Remaining particulars in acertificate of registration can be modified and changed and canbe noted in the certificate of registration as provided in section52(2), (3) and (5) and the Rules. Under section 52(5), in case aperson is holding a vehicle on a hire purchase agreement, heshall not make any alteration except with the written consent ofthe original owner. [Para 32][207-A-D]

BC

4. In the impugned judgment, the High Court has failed togive effect to the provisions contained in section 52(1) and hasemphasized only on the Rules. As such, the decision renderedby the Division Bench cannot be said to be laying down the lawcorrectly. The Rules are subservient to the provisions of the Actand particulars in certificate of registration can also be changedexcept to the extent of the entries made in the same as per thespecifications originally made by the manufacturer. Circular No.7/2006 is also to be read in that spirit. [Para 33][207-E-F]

D

E

Avishek Goenka (1) v. Union of India & Anr. (2012) 5SCC 321 : [2012] 4 SCR 35 – relied on.

R. Ramasamy v. The Secretary, Ministry of Transport,Chennai & Ors. (2009) 1 Mad.LJ 1027; Mohd. Javeedv. Union of India & Ors. (2001) 9 ALD 88 = 2009 1ALT 507; V.N. Dharmakrishnan v. DeputyCommissioner of Transport AIR 2006Mad. 340 –referred to.

F

H

ACIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 219 -222 of 2019.

From the Judgment and Order dated 19.11.2012 of the High Courtof Kerala at Ernakulam in W.P. Nos. 28702 of 2007-P, 1323 of 2010-M,1468 of 2010-G and 274 of 2012-H.

B

WITH

Civil Appeal No. 223 of 2019.

Aman Lekhi, ASG, K. V. Viswanathan, Sr. Adv., Ravi Raghunath,Dhananjay B. Ray, Mukunda Rao, Ms. Vrinda Bhandari, VenkatramanCV. R., Nishe Rajen Shonker, Ms. Anu K. Joy, A. Anvar, Reegan S. Bel,Jogy Scaria, Mohan Prasad Gupta, Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Bharat Singh,Gurmeet Singh Makker, Advs. for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ARUN MISHRA, J. 1. Leave granted.D

2. The question involved is as to the permissible alteration in aMotor Vehicle in view of the provisions contained in section 52 of theMotor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), Rule126 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and the effect of Rules96, 103 and 261 of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. The CentralEGovernment has framed the rules called Central Motor Vehicle Rules,1989 (for short “the Central Rules”) in exercise of the power conferredunder section 27 of the Act, and in exercise of powers conferred underSection 28 of the Act, the Kerala Government has framed the KeralaMotor Vehicle Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “the Kerala Rules”).The validity of Circular No.7/2006 issued by the Transport Commissioner,FKerala to all the Registering Authorities stating that the body of thevehicle constructed in violation of the prototype test certificate and whichwas not built in strict compliance of the specifications given by themanufacturer are to be denied the registration. Pursuant thereto theRegional Transport Authorities did not grant permission to certain motorGvehicles in view of the provisions contained in section 52 and the Circular.As such several writ petitions came to be filed in the High Court ofKerala at Ernakulam.

3. In Writ Petition (C) No.29946 of 2006 decided on 16.1.2007 bythe learned Single Judge it was held that Rule 126 of the Central Rules H

does not fetter the powers of the Regional Transport Authorities tointelligently exercise their discretion in terms of the Kerala Rules, inparticular Rules 96, 103 and 261; whereas a contrary view was taken byanother Single Judge vide order dated 23.5.2007 in Writ Petition (C)No.8836 of 2007 and it was observed that the alteration in derogation ofprototype test in terms of Rule 126 of the Central Rules cannot beapproved.

4. Writ Petition (C) No.28702 of 2007 for quashing Circular No.7/2006 and the order passed on 3.7.2007 declining registration was filed.

5. Writ Petition (C) Nos.1323 of 2010 and 1468/2010 were filedwith respect to the denial of registration by the Registering Authoritiesas the body built over the chassis extended by a length of 15 cms. beyondthe chassis which was not adhering to the specifications given by themanufacturer of the vehicle.

6. Writ Petition (C) No.274 of 2012 was filed by the owner of thevehicle to question denial of registration in view of the aforesaid rule andthe Circular. Yet another Writ Petition (C) No.274 of 2012 was filedagainst the refusal to grant registration of a vehicle which was re-modelledas a ‘recovery vehicle’ altered in an unauthorised manner by cutting thechassis of the vehicle by one feet at the rear end which was not inconformity with the prototype test in terms of Rule 126 of the CentralRules.

7. In view of the conflict in judgments in Writ Petition (C) No.29946of 2006 and Writ Petition (C) No.8836 of 2007 regarding the issue ofalteration whether alteration is permissible at variance with themanufacturer’s specification contained in the prototype test certification,the matter was referred to a Division Bench of the High Court. TheHigh Court by the common judgment passed in the writ petitions cameto the conclusion that structural alteration is permissible as per theprovisions of the Kerala Rules. The view taken by the learned SingleJudge in Writ Petition (C) No.29946 of 2006 has been upheld hence theappeals have been preferred in this Court. This Court has stayed theoperation of the impugned judgment and order on 16.4.2013. Consideringthe importance of the matter notice was issued to the Ministry of RoadTransport and Highways through its Secretary, and Mr. K.V. Viswanathan,learned senior counsel was appointed as amicus curiae to assist theCourt.

AB

C

DE

F

G

H

A8. It is apparent from the factual matrix of Writ Petition (C)No.28702 of 2007 that it was a case of medium commercial bus chassis.The registration was declined on the ground that the platform of the buswas extended to a distance of 37 cms. and the body was having anextension of 39 cms. from the extreme rear end of the chassis. Thevehicle had an extended length of 39 cms. The technical specificationsBof model TATA bus chassis have specified length of 757.5 cm. After thebody was built, it had a total length of 796.5 cm.

9. Similarly, in Writ Petition (C) No.1323 of 2010 and Writ Petition(C) No.1468 of 2010, the body was built over the chassis extended by15 cm. beyond the chassis. In Writ Petition (C) No.274 of 2012 theCvehicle was re-modeled as a recovery vehicle by cutting the chassis ofthe vehicle by one foot at the rear end. In Writ Petition (C) No.29946 of2006, the unladen weight of the vehicle before alteration was 2315 kg.and the same had been increased on alteration to 2715 kgs. Besides,there were changes in the measurement of the body which resulted inDdeclining the permission for registration. In Writ Petition (C) No.8836 of2007, the length of the chassis of the vehicle as per prototype was 832.5cm. but after building the body it was found to have been extended to885 cm.

10. Section 52 of the Act deals with alteration in the motor vehicle.EPrior to that, provision with respect to alteration in motor vehicles wascontained in section 32 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Section 32 ofthe Act of 1939 is extracted hereunder:

“SECTION 32: ALTERATION IN MOTOR VEHICLE

(1) No owner of a motor vehicle shall so alter the vehicle that theFparticulars contained in the certificate of registration are no longer-accurate, unless (a) he has given notice to the registering authority within whosejurisdiction he resides of the alteration he proposes to make, and (b) he has obtained the approval of the registering authority toGmake such alteration:

Provided that it shall not be necessary to obtain such approval formaking any change in the unladen weight of the motor vehicleconsequent on the addition or removal of fittings or accessories ifSuch change does not exceed two percent. of the weight enteredHin the certificate of registration.

(2) Where a registering authority has received notice under sub-section (1), it shall, within seven days of the receipt thereof,communicate, by post, to the owner of the vehicle its approval tothe proposed alteration or otherwise:

Provided that where the owner of the motor vehicle has notreceived any such communication within the said period of sevendays, the approval of such authority to the proposed alterationshall be deemed to have been given.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a StateGovernment may, by notification in the Official Gazette, authorise,subject to such conditions as may be specified in the notification,the owners of not less than ten transport vehicles to alter anyvehicle owned by them so as to change its engine number byreplacing the engine thereof without the approval of the registeringauthority.

(4) Where any alteration has been made in a motor vehicle eitherwith the approval of the registering authority given or deemed tohave been given under sub-section (2) or by reason of any changein its engine number without such approval under sub-section (3),the owner of the vehicle shall within fourteen days of the makingof the alteration, report the alteration to the registering authoritywithin whose jurisdiction he resides and shall forward the certificateof registration to that authority together with the prescribed fee inorder that particulars of the alteration may be entered therein.

(5) A registering authority other than the original registeringauthority making any such entry shall communicate the details ofthe entry to the original registering authority.”

11. The alteration in a motor vehicle under the parent Act is dealtwith in section 52 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Section 52 as originallyenacted is extracted hereunder:

“52. Alternation in a motor vehicle .-

(1) No owner of a motor vehicle shall so alter the vehicle that theparticulars contained in the certificate of registration are no longer-accurate, unless.

A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

(a) he has given notice to the registering authority within whosejurisdiction he has the residence or the place of business wherethe vehicle is normally kept, as the case may be of the alterationhe proposes to make; and (b) he has obtained the approval of that registering authority tomake such alteration:

Provided that it shall not be necessary to obtain such approval formaking any change in the unladen weight of the motor vehicleconsequent on the addition or removal of fittings or accessories ifsuch change does not exceed two percent of the weight enteredin the certificate of registration.

Provided further that modification of the engine, or any part thereof,of a vehicle for facilitating its operation by a different type of fuelor source of energy including battery, compressed natural gas,solar power or any other fuel or source of energy other than liquidpetroleum gas shall be treated as an alteration but that shall besubject to such conditions as may be prescribed.

(2) Where a registering authority has received notice under sub-section (1), it shall, within seven days of the receipt thereof,communicate, by post, to the owner of the vehicle its approval tothe proposed alteration or otherwise:

Provided that where the owner of the motor vehicle has notreceived any such communication within the said period of sevendays, the approval of such authority to the proposed alterationshall be deemed to have been given.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a StateGovernment may, by notification in the Official Gazette, authorise,subject to such conditions as may be specified in the notification,the owners of not less than ten transport vehicles to alter anyvehicle owned by them so as to change its engine number byreplacing the engine thereof without the approval of the registeringauthority.

(4) Where any alteration has been made in a motor vehicle eitherwith the approval of the registering authority given or deemed tohave been given under sub-section (2) or by reason of any changein its engine number without such approval under sub-section (3), the owner of the vehicle shall within fourteen days of the makingof the alteration, report the alteration to the registering authoritywithin whose jurisdiction he resides and shall forward the certificateof registration to that authority together with the prescribed fee inorder that particulars of the alteration may be entered therein.

(5) A registering authority other than the original registeringauthority making any such entry shall communicate the details ofthe entry to the original registering authority.

(6) No person holding a vehicle under a hire-purchase agreementshall make any alteration to the vehicle for which approval of theregistering authority is required under sub-section (1) except withthe written consent of the registered owner.”

12. Section 52 has undergone change by way of Amendment Act27/2000. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of Amendment Act 27/2000 is extracted hereunder:

“Amendment Act 27 of 2000 – Statement of Objects andReasons. – The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 consolidated andrationalized various laws regulating road transport. The said Actwas amended in 1994.

2. Further amendments in the aforesaid Act have becomenecessary so as to reduce the vehicular pollution and to ensurethe safety of the road users. It is, therefore, proposed to prohibitalteration of vehicles in any manner including change of tyres ofhigher capacity. However, the alteration of vehicles with a view-to facilitating the use of ecofriendly fuel including LiquefiedPetroleum Gas (LPG) is being permitted.Further, it is proposedto confer powers on the Central Government to allow the alterationof vehicles for certain specified purposes.

3. At present, the educational institutions are not required to obtainpermits for the operation of buses owned by them. It is proposedto bring the buses run by these institutions within the purview ofthe aforesaid Act by requiring them to obtain permits.

4. It is also proposed to allow renewal of permits, driving licencesand registration certificates granted under the Motor Vehicles Act, A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A1939 to be renewed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, byinserting new section 217 – A.

5. The proposed amendments are essential in the overall interestof securing road safety and maintaining a clean environment.”

B

13. It is apparent that section 52 has been amended with the purposeto prohibit alteration of vehicles in any manner including change of tyresof higher capacity, keeping in view road safety and protection ofenvironment. Section 52 has been amended by virtue of AmendmentAct 27/2000 in the following manner:

C

“52. Alteration in a motor vehicle. –

(1) No owner of a motor vehicle shall so alter the vehicle that theparticulars contained in the certificate of registration are at variancewith those originally specified by the manufacturer:

D

DProvided that where the owner of a motor vehicle makesmodification of the engine, or any part thereof of a vehicle forfacilitating its operation by different type of fuelor source of energyincluding battery, compressed natural gas, solar power, liquidpetroleum gas or any other fuel or source of energy, by fitment ofa conversion kit, such modification shall be carried out subject toEsuch conditions as may be prescribed:

Provided further that the Central Government may prescribespecifications conditions for approval, retrofitment and otherrelated matters for such conversion kits; Provided also that the Central Government may grant an exemptionfor alteration of vehicles in a manner other than specified above,for any specific purpose.

F

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a StateGovernment may, by notification in the Official Gazette, authorise,subject to such conditions as may be specified in the notifications,and permit any person owning not less than ten transport vehiclesto alter any vehicle owned by him so as to replace the enginethereof with engine of the same make and type, without theapproval of registering authority.

G

H

(3) Where any alteration has been made in a motor vehicle withoutthe approval of registering authority or by reason of replacementof its engine without such approval under sub-section

(2), the owner of the vehicle shall, within fourteen days of themaking of the alteration, report the alteration to the registeringauthority within whose jurisdiction he resides and shall forwardthe certificate of registration to that authority together with theprescribed fee in order that particulars of registration may beentered therein.

(4) A registering authority other than the original registeringauthority making any such entry shall communicate the details ofthe entry to the original registering authority.

(5) Subject to the provisions made under sub-section (1), (2), (3)and (4), no person holding a vehicle under a hire-purchaseagreement shall make any alteration to the vehicle except withthe written consent of the registered owner.

Explanation. - For the purpose of this section, “alteration” meansa change in the structure of a vehicle which results in change inits basic feature.”

14. Rule 126 of the Central Rules deals with the prototype ofevery motor vehicle to be subject to test. Rule 126 is extracted hereunder:

“126. Prototype of every motor vehicle to be subject totest.— On and from the date of commencement of Central MotorVehicles (Amendment) Rules, 1993, every [manufacturer orimporter] of motor vehicles [including trailers, semi trailers andmodular hydraulic trailer] [including registered association(identified by the concerned State Transport Department) for E-rickshaw wherever applicable] shall submit the prototype of thevehicle [to be manufactured or imported by him] for test by theVehicle Research and Development Establishment of the Ministryof Defence of the Government of India or Automotive ResearchAssociation of India, Pune, [or the Central Farm Machinery Testingand Training Institute, Budni (MP)], or the Indian Institute ofPetroleum, Dehradun, [or the Central Institute of Road Transport”,Pune, or the International Centre for Automotive Technology, A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

Manesar,] [or the Northern Region Farm Machinery Training andTesting Institute, Hissar (for testing of combine harvester) andsuch other agencies as may be specified by the CentralGovernment for granting a certificate by that agency as to thecompliance of provisions of the Act and these rules:]

[Provided that the procedure for type approval and certificationof motor vehicles for compliance to these rules shall be inaccordance with the AIS:017-2000, as amended from time to time:]

B

[Provided further that in respect to the vehicles imported into Indiaas completely built units (CBU), the importer shall submit a vehicleCof that particular model and type to the testing agencies for grantinga certificate by that agency as to the compliance to the provisionof the Act and these rules.]

[126A. The testing agencies referred to in rule 126 shall inaccordance with the procedures laid down by the CentralGovernment also conduct tests on vehicles drawn from theDproduction line of the manufacturer to verify whether these vehiclesconform to the provisions of [rules made under section 110 of theAct]:]

[Provided that in case the number of vehicles sold in India for aEgiven base model and its variants (manufactured in India orimported to India) are less than 250 in any consecutive period ofsix months in a year, then such base model and its variants neednot be subjected to the above test, if at least one model or itsvariants manufactured or imported by that manufacturer orimporter, as the case may be, is subjected to such tests at leastFonce in a year:

Provided further that, in case the number of base models and itsvariants manufactured/imported is more than one and if theindividual base model and its variants are less than 250 in anyconsecutive period of six months in a year, then the testing agenciesGcan pick up one of the vehicles out of such models and their variantsonce in a year for carrying out such test.] “

15. Rule 93 deals with the overall dimension of motor vehicles.The Rule prescribes the overall width, overall length, and overall heightetc. Rule 93(1) deals with overall width. Rule 93(2) with overall length.HRule 93(4) with overall height. Rule 93(6) with overhang etc.

16. The relevant Rules 96, 103 and 261 of the Kerala MotorVehicles Rules, 1989, providing for inspection of vehicles, recordingalteration and body construction are extracted hereunder:

“96. Inspection of vehicle prior to Registration:- (1) InspectingOfficer.- The Registering Authority or such authority as theGovernment may by order appoint shall inspect the vehicle asrequired by section 44 of the Act.

(2) Production of vehicle for inspection:- The vehicle shall beproduced for inspection along with the required documents forregistration, before the inspecting officer, for comparative scrutinyof the particulars contained in the application with the physicalfeatures of the vehicles, and for ascertaining its fitness for use inpublic place.

(3) Report of Inspecting Officer:- The Inspecting Officer aftermaking modifications deemed necessary in the particularscontained in the application, shall certify therein regarding thecorrectness of the entries and the fitness of the vehicle:

Provided that in the case of a transport vehicle, or for any othervehicle of which the body is not factory-built or a stereotypedpattern previously approved by the Registering Authority, he shallprepare and issue a measurement certificate in Form “MC” anda sketch showing therein the seating arrangements, dimensionsand other relevant particulars under Chapter VII of these rules.The Inspecting Officer shall simultaneously forward a copy eachof the measurement certificate and sketch to the concernedRegistering Authority also.

103. Recording alteration to a motor vehicle:- (1) Ascertainingsuitability of alteration – The Registering Authority may requireinspection of the vehicle by himself or by any other Inspector ofmotor vehicles to satisfy that any alteration made is suitable. Theowner of the vehicle shall, on demand, produce the vehicle forinspection.

(2) The Inspecting Officer shall prepare and issue a freshmeasurement certificate in Form “MC” and a sketch showingtherein the seating arrangement, dimensions etc., as found oninspection in the following circumstances:

A

B

CDE

F

G

H

A(a) When consequent to any structural alteration made in a motorvehicle the particulars of registration noted in one or more of items1, 3, 11, 13 & 19 of the certificate of registration are no longeraccurate.

(b) When consequent to any re-arrangement of loading space orBseats, their position or dimensions are altered though sucharrangement does not affect the registration particulars referredto in clause (a) above.

261. Body construction:- The body of every transport vehicleshall be soundly constructed and securely fastened to the frameCof the vehicle and in accordance with the specifications, if any,laid down by the State or Regional Transport Authority.”

17. The Division Bench of the High Court in the impugnedjudgment has opined that alteration is not totally prohibited. More so, inDview of Rules 96 and 103 of the Kerala Rules, the Registering Authorityis competent to consider roadworthiness and safety of the vehicle and itcannot be rendered a mechanical exercise. It is not only to verify as towhether the measurement conforms to the prototype test etc. The Rulesprovide for the dimensions of the vehicle. Rule 93 is not an enablingEprovision to make prototype certification. Rule 47(1)(g) of the CentralRules contemplates on road-worthiness certificate in Form 22 from themanufacturers and in Form 22A from the bodybuilders for applying forregistration of the motor vehicles. The body can be built on a chassis incompliance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rulesframed thereunder. The manufacturer or the authorities specified underFRule 126 do not provide for any prescription as to the dimensions ornature of the body that is to be built on the chassis. The writ petitionshave been allowed and orders passed by the Registering Authoritieshave been quashed.

18. It was urged by Mr. K.V. Viswanathan, learned senior counselGappearing as amicus curiae that the provisions contained in section 52 ofthe Act and Rule 126, as well as the Kerala Rules, have not been correctlyinterpreted by the High Court. It is not permissible to make alterationunder the Rules in contravention of the provisions contained in section52 of the Act. The provisions of the Act and the Rules have been enactedfor the purpose of safety on the roads and environment and it is notH

permissible to alter the vehicle in derogation to the provisions of the Act.He has referred to a plethora of decisions and has also attracted theattention of this Court towards the pending Motor Vehicles Amendment)Bill, 2017 and the extracts of 243[rd] Report of the Parliamentary StandingCommittee on Transport, Tourism and Culture on the Motor Vehicles(Amendment) Bill, 2016.

19. Mr. Aman Lekhi, learned Additional Solicitor General appearingon behalf of the Ministry of Transport contended that the correctinterpretation of the amended provisions in section 52 has not been madeby the High Court. He has also attracted our attention to the Rules.

20. In Avishek Goenka (1) v. Union of India & Anr. (2012) 5SCC 321, a question came up for consideration with respect to Rule 100of the Central Rules prescribing a standard for safety. This Court heldthe same to be a valid piece of legislation. The object of the Act alsocame up for consideration and the Court observed that the legislativeintent attaching due significance to the “public safety” is evident fromthe Objects and Reasons of the Act. The Court should give aninterpretation of the Rules which would serve the legislative intent andthe object of framing such Rules, in preference to the one which woulddefeat the very purpose of enacting the Rules as well as underminingthe public safety and interest. This Court considered the provisionscontained in section 52, Rules 92 and 100 of the Central Rules andobserved thus:

“18. From the above provisions, it is clear that the Rules deal withevery minute detail of construction and maintenance of a vehicle.In other words, the standards, sizes, and specifications which themanufacturer of a vehicle is required to adhere to whilemanufacturing the vehicle are exhaustively dealt with under theRules. What is permitted has been specifically provided for andwhat has not been specifically stated would obviously be deemedto have been excluded from these Rules. It would neither bepermissible nor possible for the Court to read into these statutoryprovisions, what is not specifically provided for. These are thespecifications which are in consonance with the prescribed ISNo. 2553-Part 2 of 1992 and nothing is ambiguous or uncertain.

19. Let us take a few examples. Rule 104 requires that everymotor vehicle, other than three-wheelers and motorcycles shall A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

A

be fitted with two red reflectors, one each on both sides at theirrear. Every motorcycle shall be fitted with at least one red reflectorat the rear. Rule 104A provides that two white reflex in the frontof the vehicle on each side and visible to oncoming vehicles fromthe front at night.

B20. Rule 106 deals with deflections of lights and requires that nolamp showing a light to the front shall be used on any motor vehicleincluding construction equipment vehicle unless such lamp is soconstructed, fitted and maintained that the beam of light emittedtherefrom is permanently deflected downwards to such an extentthat it is not capable of dazzling any person whose eye position isCat a distance of 8 meters from the front of lamp etc. Rules 119and 120 specify the kind, size, and manner in which the horn andsilencer are to be fixed in a vehicle.

21. These provisions demonstrate the extent of minuteness in theRules and the efforts of the framers to ensure, not only theDappropriate manner of construction and maintenance of the vehiclebut also the safety of other users of the road.

28. The legislative intent attaching due significance to the ‘publicsafety’ is evident from the object and reasons of the Act, theprovisions of the Act and more particularly, the Rules framedEthereunder. Even if we assume, for the sake of argument, thatRule 100 is capable of any interpretation, then this Court shouldgive it an interpretation which would serve the legislative intentand the object of framing such rules, in preference to one whichwould frustrate the very purpose of enacting the Rules as well asFundermining the public safety and interest.

32. In the present case as well, even if some individual interestsare likely to suffer, such individual or private interests must give into the larger public interest. It is the duty of all citizens to complywith the law. The Rules are mandatory and nobody has theauthority in law to mould these rules for the purposes ofGconvenience or luxury and certainly not for crime.”

21. It has been observed that the Rules deal in minute details withthe construction and maintenance of the vehicle. Rules also deal withthe safety of other users on the road. If some individual interest is likelyto suffer, such individual interest must give way to the larger publicHinterest.

22. Before dilating further upon the issue we take note of thedecision in R. Ramasamy v. The Secretary, Ministry of Transport,Chennai & Ors. (2009) 1 Mad.LJ 1027 wherein the Madras High Courthas considered the provisions of section 52(1)(a) as amended by Act 27/2000 and has opined thus:

“8.4 A comparison of the aforesaid provisions makes it clear thatSection 32(1)(a) and (b) of the Old Act along with the proviso hadbeen practically re-enacted as Section 52(1)(a) and (b) of theNew Act. However, in the New Act, a second proviso was addedwhich permitted modification of the engine for facilitating itsoperation by a different type of fuel. Section 32(2) of the Old Actalong with the proviso was re-enacted as Section 52(2) of theNew Act. As per Section 32(1) and 32(2) of the Old Act,corresponding to Section 52(1) and 52(2) of the new Act, beforemaking any alteration, the owner was required to give notice tothe registering authority and obtain permission. The registeringauthority was required to communicate its approval or disapprovalwithin seven days and if no such communication was served withinthe period of seven days, approval of such authority to the proposedalteration was deemed to have been given. Section 32(3) of theOld Act corresponding to Section 52(3) of the New Act, containedan enabling provision whereunder the State Government couldauthorize the owners having ten or more transport vehicles tochange its engine number by replacing such engine without theapproval of the registering authority. Section 32(4) of the Old Actcorresponding to Section 52(4) of the New Act, cast a duty on theowner of the vehicle to report the alteration made with actual ordeemed approval as contemplated under Section 32(2) of the OldAct corresponding to Section 52(2) of the new Act or, and withoutapproval as contemplated under Section 32(3) of the Old Actcorresponding to Section 52(3) of the New Act “in order thatparticulars of the alteration may be entered in the certificate ofregistration”. Section 32(5) of the Old Act corresponding to Section52(5) of the New Act envisaged that the registering authoritymaking any such entry should communicate the details of the entryto the original registering authority. Section 52(6) of the New Actcontained a new provision laying down that a person holding avehicle under a hire purchase agreement cannot make the A

BC

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

alterations contemplated in Section 52(1) of the New Act withoutthe written consent of the registered owner.

8.5 After amendment of Section 52 of the New Act under Act 27of 2000, Section 52(1) has been retained as Section 52(1) withsignificant modification. It is important to notice that the provisionscontained in Section 32(1)(a) & (b) of the Old Act correspondingto Section 52(1)(a) & (b) of the New Act relating to giving ofnotice and obtaining of approval of the registering authority havebeen deleted in the Amended Act. The amended section does notcontain any provision relating to giving of notice or obtaining ofapproval. The first proviso to Section 52(1) of the New Act hasalso been deleted and the second proviso to Section 52(1) of theNew Act relating to the modification of engine has been re-enactedas the first proviso to Section 52(1) of the Amended Act.Moreover, two other provisos have been added to Section 52(1).Since the earlier provision in Section 52(1)(a) & (b) of the NewAct relating to the issuance of notice and approval have beendeleted. Section 52(2) of the New Act which related to deemedapproval on expiry of seven days has also been deleted and Section52(3) of the New Act has been renumbered as Section 52(2) ofthe Amended Act. Section 52(4) of the New Act has been re-enacted with certain changes as Section 52(3) of the AmendedAct requiring the owner to report regarding the alteration to theregistering authority. Under Section 52(4) of the New Act, theowner was required to report about the alteration, made eitherwith the approval or deemed approval of the registering authority,or by reason of replacement of engine, without such approval, to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction he resided andshall forward the certificate of registration to that authority togetherwith the prescribed fee “in order that particulars of the alterationmay be entered therein”.

8.6 A minute examination of the provisions makes it clear that theexpression “particulars of the alteration may be entered therein”as contained in Section 52(4) of the New Act, now reads as “inorder that particulars of the registration may be entered therein”in the Amended Act. It is crystal clear that the word “registration”in the Amended Act is an obvious typographical mistake, whichhas been inadvertently incorporated instead of the word “alteration”. What is intended is that the particulars of the alterationmade in a vehicle should be incorporated in the certificate ofregistration.

8.7 Sections 52(5) and 52(6) of the New Act, have been now re-enacted as Sections 52(4) and 52(5) of the Amended Actrespectively. The Amended Act, however, contains an importantexplanation, which was absent in the Old Act or the New Act.The explanation is to the effect that, for the purpose of Section52, “alteration” means a change in the structure of a vehicle whichresults in a change in its basic feature.

9. Section 52(1) of the Amended Act obviously is not very happilyworded. By altering the vehicle the particulars contained in thecertificate of registration cannot be a variance with those specifiedby the manufacturers. The certificate of registration contains someof the vital particulars of the vehicles. The real meaning is thatthe particulars of alteration to be incorporated in the Certificateof Registration as contemplated in Section 52(3) of the AmendedAct are at variance with those originally specified by themanufacturer. When the provision is read in the light of theexplanation, it is obvious that changes or modification which donot result in a change in basic feature need not be considered asan alteration within the meaning of Section 52 of the AmendedAct.

……

……

11.1 A comparison of the relevant provisions contained in the OldAct and the New Act with the provisions of the Amendment Actclearly indicates that the Legislature has dispensed with therequirement of obtaining permission relating to every change ormodification effected in a motor vehicle. In fact, the 1988 Actitself has been amended in such a manner as to make it unnecessaryfor seeking permission to make such minor change or modification.Moreover, every minor change or modification is not necessarilyconsidered as an alteration within the meaning of Section 52 ofthe Amended Act. In the present case, the RTO has practicallyapplied the provisions, which were available before the amendmentwas effected in 2000, without taking note of such amendment.”

AB

CDE

F

G

H

A23 It has been observed by the High Court of Madras that analternation in the vehicle is not permissible which may be at variancewith the particulars contained in the certificate of registration whichcontains vital particulars of the vehicle and the permissible changes ormodifications and which do not result in change in the basic feature,need not be considered as alternation within the meaning of section 52Bof the Amended Act.

24. The decision in the case of K.S. Rajesh Kumar v. TheAdditional Registering Authority of Kerala High Court delivered on1.2.2010 has also been referred to wherein the question of alteration inthe vehicle came up for consideration. The passenger vehicle wasCpurchased as defined in section 2(17) of the M.V. Act. The petitionerwanted to convert the same into the vehicle that could be used as acinema outdoor unit by fixing a generator set therein. The Court heldthat the petitioner has not made any alteration to either the chassis or thebody of the vehicle as the manufacturer has manufactured only theDchassis of the vehicle and not its superstructure. In place of the seatsmeant for passengers, the petitioner was fitting only a generator whichalteration was permissible. There was no violation of the provisions ofsection 52.

25. The decision in Mohd. Javeed v. Union of India & Ors.E(2001) 9 ALD 88 = 2009 1 ALT 507 has also been referred by thelearned amicus curiae. In the said case chassis were changed. The Courtheld that the chassis is the base frame of a motor vehicle and no doubt isan important feature of the vehicle. Whether the change of the chassiswould amount to change in the structure of the vehicle. The replacementbecame necessary on account of the accident. There was no otherFchange in the structure of the vehicle. It was held that section 52(3)enables the owner of the vehicle to replace the engine of the vehicle butthe factum of replacement has to be reported to the Authority within 14days. On the same analogy, the Court held that the chassis was changedby the manufacturer with the approval of the insurance company andGthe bank and change became necessary due to the damage caused tothe chassis owing to the accident. Thus the refusal of registration washeld to be bad in law and set aside. In fact, there was no change ofchassis except the replacement in the said case.

26. The decision in V.N. Dharmakrishnan v. DeputyHCommissioner of Transport, AIR 2006 Mad. 340 has also been placed for consideration. The question arose whether a Delivery Van GoodsCarrier can be altered as an ambulance. The Court held it to be a clearviolation of the provisions of the M.V. Act and using goods carriage asan ambulance for which permit had already been canceled, cannot becondoned on the ground that the 5[th] respondent was rendering somefree service. The decision turned on its own facts.

27. The very object of the amendment of section 52(1) by Act 27/2000 is to prohibit alteration of a vehicle as provided including the changeof tyres of higher capacity. The amended section 52(1) has specified theextent to which vehicle cannot be altered. A reading of the provisionsmakes it clear that no vehicle can be altered in a manner where particularsin the certificate of registration are at variance with those “originallyspecified by the manufacturer”. The proviso to sub-section (1) permitsmodification of the engine, or any part thereof, of a vehicle for facilitatingits operation by a different type of fuel or source of energy includingbattery etc., such modification is permissible to be carried out subject tosuch conditions as may be prescribed. The second proviso to section52(1) empowers the Central Government to prescribe specifications,conditions for approval, retro-fitment and other related matters for suchconversion kits. The Central Government has power to grant an exemptionfor alteration of vehicles for any specific purpose. Section 52(2) authorizesa State Government to issue a notification and permit any person owningnot less than 10 transport vehicles to alter any vehicle owned by him soas to replace the ‘engine’ with an engine of the same make and type,without the approval of the Registering Authority. Section 52(3) providesthat where the alteration has been made without the approval of theRegistering Authority, obviously the one which is permissible in the motorvehicle, the owner of the vehicle has to report the same within 14 daysto make an entry in the particulars of the registration. The provisions ofsection 52(2), (3), (4) and (5) have to be read harmoniously. TheExplanation to section 52 says that “alteration” means a change in thestructure of a vehicle which results in a change in its basic feature. Thealterations which do not change the basic features are outside the purviewof alteration.

28. The object and the clear intent of amended section 52 is thatthe vehicle cannot be so altered that the particulars contained in thecertificate of registration are at variance with those “originally specifiedby the manufacturer”. The manufacturer issues sale certificate in Form A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A21 which has been framed under Rule 47(1)(a) of the Central Rules.Rule 47(1)(a) is extracted hereunder :

“47. Application for registration of motor vehicles.— (1) Anapplication for registration of a motor vehicle shall be made inForm 20 to the registering authority within a period of 1[sevenBdays] from the date of taking delivery of such vehicle, excludingthe period of journey and shall be accompanied by—

(a) sale certificate in Form 21;”

29. The particulars are to be specified by the manufacturer. Anapplication for registration of the motor vehicle has to be filed in FormC20. It has to accompany a sale certificate issued by the manufacturer ordealer etc. as the case may be as provided in Rule 47(1)(a) and (d).Form 20 is extracted hereunder:

D

E

F

G

H

REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER v. K. JAYACHANDRA[ARUN MISHRA, J.]

ABCDEFGH

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER v. K. JAYACHANDRA[ARUN MISHRA, J.]

ABCDEF

GH

204SUPREME COURT REPORTS[2019] 1 S.C.R.ABC

DEF30. Form 21 as provided in Rule 47(a) and (d) contain sale certificateissued by the manufacturer same is extracted hereunder:GH

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

A

B

31. The certificate of registration has to be issued in Form 23 asCprovided in Rule 48 of the Central Rules. Rule 48 deals with the issue ofthe certificate of registration under Rule 47. Rule 48 is extractedhereunder :

“48. Issue of certificate of registration.— On receipt of anapplication under rule 47 and after verification of the documentsDfurnished therewith, the registering authority shall, subject to theprovisions of section 44, issue to the owner of the motor vehicle acertificate of registration in Form 23 or Form 23A, as may bespecified in the Notification issued by the concerned StateGovernment or Union Territory Administration [within the periodof thirty days from the receipt of such an application]:E[Provided that where the certificate of registration pertains to atransport vehicle it shall be handed over to the registered owneronly after recording the certificate of fitness in Form 38 [withinthe period of thirty days from the date of receipt of such anapplication].]”F

32. The vehicle has to comply with the provisions of the Rulescontained in Chapter V of the Central Rules as provided in Rule 92(1).Rule 92(1) has to be read as subservient to the provisions contained insection 52 of the Act and what is prohibited therein to allow the same isnot the intendment of the rules contained in the Chapter. Various provisionsGin Chapter V are additional safeguards to what is prohibited in section52(1) that is to say, what has been specified originally by the manufacturersand once that has been entered in the particulars in the certificate ofregistration, cannot be varied. No vehicle can be altered so as to changeoriginal specification made by manufacturer. Such particulars cannot be H

altered which have been specified by the manufacturer for the purposeof entry in the certificate of registration. It is provided in Rule 126 of theCentral Rules, prototype of every type of vehicle is subject to test. Theprovisions of Rule 126 intend for fitness of vehicle to be plied on theroad by the agencies which are specified therein. Approval andcertification of motor vehicles for compliance to these rules shall be inaccordance with the AIS: 017-2000. Rule 93 deals with overall dimensionsof the motor vehicles such as width, length, height, overhang etc. Nodoubt about it that the vehicle has to be in conformity with the rules alsobut Rules cannot be so interpreted so as to permit the alteration asprohibited under section 52(1) of the Act. The alteration under the Rulesis permissible except as prohibited by section 52. The specification ofthe rules would hold good with respect to the matters as not specificallycovered under section 52(1) and not specified therein by manufacturer.The emphasis of section 52(1) is not to vary the “original specificationsby the manufacturer”. Remaining particulars in a certificate of registrationcan be modified and changed and can be noted in the certificate ofregistration as provided in section 52(2), (3) and (5) and the Rules. Undersection 52(5), in case a person is holding a vehicle on a hire purchaseagreement, he shall not make any alteration except with the writtenconsent of the original owner.

33. In our considered opinion the Division Bench in the impugnedjudgment of the High Court of Kerala has failed to give effect to theprovisions contained in section 52(1) and has emphasized only on theRules. As such, the decision rendered by the Division Bench cannot besaid to be laying down the law correctly. The Rules are subservient tothe provisions of the Act and particulars in certificate of registration canalso be changed except to the extent of the entries made in the same asper the specifications originally made by the manufacturer. Circular No.7/2006 is also to be read in that spirit. Authorities to act accordingly.

34. Resultantly, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained andis hereby set aside. The appeals are allowed.

Kalpana K. Tripathy

Appeals allowed.

AB

CD

E

F

G

H