VINU VINCENT Vs. ADDITIONAL REGISTERING AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeals by the identical appellant arise from two writ petitions, rejected by the learned Single Judge. Both the writ petitions canvassed the very same cause of registration of a goods carriage vehicle as a 'tow truck' and its classification as a 'transport vehicle'. The learned Single Judge followed the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Hassan Koya v. Transport Commissioner [2015 (1) KLT 916] to reject the contention of the appellant. The appellant contends that the said decision is per incuriam, insofar as not noticing the notification issued by the Central Government, which categorized tow trucks as non-transport vehicles. The learned Single Judge found that the notification produced along with the writ petitions, Exhibits P11 and P12 respectively, enables only a vehicle designed and manufactured as a tow truck to be treated as a non-transport vehicle. It was found that the notification cannot be construed to mean that every vehicle chassis adapted as a tow truck or recovery van would be treated as a non-transport vehicle; without reference to its approved prototype.

(2.) Learned Counsel Sri.C.S.Manu for appellant contended that the Division Bench decision can be distinguished insofar as it having not noticed the notification of the Central Government. It was contended that in Hassan Koya, the vehicles were goods carriage vehicles intended to be used as private vehicles for which categorization change was sought as a non-transport vehicle. In the present case, there is no body fitted on the vehicle. The appellant has purchased a chassis, on which a body can be built; the body built is in such a way as to use the vehicle as a tow truck and the appellant himself has other vehicles which have been so registered. It is argued that there are many vehicles registered in the State of Kerala, even by the Police Department after making similar adaptation in the chassis purchased from the manufacturer. There is no separate classification of a 'tow truck/recovery van' as per the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ['MV Act' for brevity] and in such circumstances, there could be registration of the vehicle after testing the safety of the vehicle when used on the road, which power is with the Registering Authority.

(3.) It is also argued that Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2017) 14 SCC 663] found that a 'light motor vehicle' (LMV) would include a transport vehicle even if it is a goods carriage if it is below the specified gross vehicle weight of 7500 Kgs. The instant vehicles satisfy the said criteria and, hence, the same have to be registered as tow trucks. It is fervently contended that if a view is taken that this would be an alteration which is not permissible, there would be no tow trucks on the roads.