SHAMNAD Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Three sets of Writ Petitions are placed before this Court for consideration. Identical prayers in all the Writ Petitions are for treatment of the motor vehicles owned by the petitioners as "Non-transport Vehicle". The majority of the petitioners are purchasers of brand-new vehicles, having a seating capacity of five, with an open platform for goods carriage on the rear; who, before registration, came to this Court for registration as "Non-transport Vehicle". Some of the Writ Petitions are with respect to identical vehicles which were purchased earlier and registered as "transport vehicle" but now seeks conversion as "Non-transport Vehicle". The others are with respect to "Pick-up Vans" which have a seating capacity of only two, but are provided with a carriage for goods in the rear. The owners of vehicles having seating capacity of five persons and an open platform for carriage of goods, on the rear, sought for registration as a "Private Light Motor Vehicle" or specifically as "Non-transport vehicle", so as to, not attract the liability to comply with the provisions of a 'Transport Vehicle" as stipulated in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the M.V. Act). Some are purchasers of new vehicles and others seek conversion to "Non-transport vehicles" after having already registered as "transport vehicles". They also claimed that, if classified as "Non-transport vehicles" their tax liability would be lesser. The aforesaid cases were filed on the strength of the judgment of a learned single Judge in Cherian v. Transport Commissioner,2009 2 KerLT 583. The said decision stands overruled in W.A. No. 1757 of 2013 & connected cases by judgment dated 9.1.2015 Hassan Koya v. Transport Commissionerm, 2015 1 KerLT 916. Hence, all the above Writ Petitions are to be dismissed.

(2.) However, the learned counsel seek a distinction insofar as the Tata Xenon Crew Cab vehicles, which are said to be classified by Automobile Research Association of India (ARAI) as N1 or M1 which classification would depend upon the use of the person purchasing the vehicle. The learned Government Pleader alertly points out that the vehicles are brought out (i).as "LMV Goods Carriage" with seating capacity of 6 with an open platform for carriage of goods and also (ii). as "LMV" with seating capacity of 8. The very same manufacturer brings out two models; one a "LMV Goods Carriage" which comes under N1 category of Rule 2(p) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for brevity "C.M.V. Rules") and yet another a "LMV" covered under Ml category of Rule 2(1). The purchase of a goods carriage can hence, only be understood as a purchase for carriage of goods.

(3.) Primarily it is to be emphasized that having purchased a "LMV Goods Carriage" with an open carriage for goods, none can contend that they do not intend to carry goods. The intention proclaimed in the Writ Petitions too, is not to that effect, but to the effect that the purchasers intend to use it for their personal/private use. There is no such categorization available for registration under the M.V. Act. No such distinction is available to determine taxation too.