MOHD JAVEED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner states that he purchased light motor vehicle (Innova 2. 5), a product of M/s. Toyota Kirloskar Motors Pvt. Ltd. From M/s. Dobro Toyota, chasis number of the vehicle is MBJ11jb4 007072937/01/07. The vehicle was given temporary Registration no. AP 09 CHT/r 4288 on 05. 03. 2007 and Temporary Registration Certificate also. While so, the vehicle met with an accident on 06. 05. 2007, in respect of which, the petitioner lodged a report before the Police Station, Shamshabad. The vehicle, through the dealer was shifted to the company's workshop, who informed the petitioner that the chasis of the vehicle has been completely damaged and has to be replaced with a new one. Accordingly, the chasis of the vehicle was replaced with a new chasis bearing No. MBJ11jv 4007089266-060, while the old chasis was scrapped. After fulfilling all the formalities with the financier and the insurance company, the petitioner approached the 3rd respondent, namely the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, by way of an application dated 20. 10. 2007, for registration, duly enclosing the documents, such as Forms 21 and 22, Sale Invoice, Certificate issued by the Police Station, Shamshabad, confirming the accident, Dealer Letter and Financier's 'no Objection certificate" to the replacement of the chasis, and requested him to register the vehicle duly incorporating the new chasis number in the Registration Certificate in the place of the old chasis number. The Motor Vehicle Inspector, who inspected the vehicle, found that the vehicle was replaced with a new chasis and that the old chasis which was damaged completely in the accident, was scrapped. However, the 3rd respondent without registering the vehicle, vide order dated 21. 01. 2008 returned the application to the petitioner stating that the request of the petitioner for registration of the vehicle cannot be considered because the particulars contained in the Certificate of Registration are at variance with those originally specified by the manufacturer, and that Section 52 of the motor Vehicles Act, 1988 precludes the owner of the vehicle from altering the vehicle. Assailing the said order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the vehicle has not been registered, it has been given only temporary registration certificate. Even before the vehicle could be registered, the vehicle met with an accident, in which the chasis of the vehicle was completely damaged. As the chasis was completely damaged, the company's workshop had replaced the chasis with a new one. He submitted that the petitioner has not altered the vehicle, the chasis of the vehicle was replaced, and the said replacement was necessitated because the old chasis was completely damaged in the accident, and it was scrapped by the company. The company, having replaced the chasis, issued certificate to that effect, and in fact, the financier and the insurance company, which insured the vehicle, expressed no objection to the replacement of the chasis. He submitted that since it is not a case of altering of the vehicle, but replacement of old chasis with a new one, the provisions of Section 52 of the motor Vehicles Act, 1988 cannot be made applicable. Therefore, the action of the 3rd respondent in returning the application of the petitioner without registering the vehicle on the ground that the particulars mentioned in the certificate of Registration are at variance with those originally specified by the manufacturer, is illegal and arbitrary. He submitted that if the 3rd respondent refuses to register the vehicle, the petitioner would be put to heavy loss, in that the petitioner cannot make use of the vehicle, and he has to pay the loan amount to the financier, irrespective of whether he makes use of the same or not. Hence, he prayed that the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent be set aside, the writ petition be allowed, and the 3rd respondent be directed to receive the application of the petitioner and register the vehicle. The 3rd respondent filed counter. The learned Government Pleader for transport and Roads and Buildings appearing on behalf of the 2nd and 3rd respondents reiterating the counter averments submitted that once the vehicle is completely damaged and beyond repairable condition and is incapable of being used on the road, the registration of such a vehicle is liable to be cancelled. He submitted that the request of the petitioner for registration of the vehicle, by incorporating the new chasis number in the Registration Certificate in the place of the old chasis number, cannot be considered because it amounts to varying the specification originally specified by the manufacturer, which is impermissible under Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In support of his argument that change in the structure of a vehicle resulting in change of its basic feature must not be at variance with the certificate of registration, placed reliance on a Full Bench judgment of this Court in A. Chandra Sekhar reddy v. Union of India. He submitted that the certificates issued by the manufacturer/dealer/ financier, certifying the replacement of the old chasis with new one, do not bind the 3rd respondent, and on the basis of such certificates, the registration as requested by the petitioner cannot be effected, because the petitioner has not obtained any prior permission from the 3rd respondent for replacement of the damaged chasis with a new one. Therefore, no fault can be found with the action of the 3rd respondent in returning the application filed by the petitioner in that regard. He submitted that as against the impugned order, the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy of appeal under Section 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, but the petitioner without availing the said remedy has filed the writ petition. Hence, he prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned government Pleader for Transport and Roads and Buildings for the 2nd and 3rd respondents, the only question that arises for consideration is whether in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the 3rd respondent was justified in issuing the impugned order dated 21. 01. 2008, refusing registration of the vehicle of the petitioner on the ground that the particulars mentioned in the certificate of Registration are at variance with those originally specified by the manufacturer? to consider this question, it is appropriate to refer to the provisions of section 52, incorporated in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 vide Act 27 of 2000. The said provision reads as follows: 52. Alteration in motor vehicle:-

(3.) THE petitioner purchased Innova vehicle on 05. 03. 2007. The petitioner was given form 21 and Form 22, wherein the specifications of the vehicle are mentioned. The chasis number of the vehicle was mentioned as No. MBJ11jb4007072937/01/07. Based on the said documents, Temporary Registration of the vehicle was effected, vide Temporary Certificate of Registration dated 05. 03. 2007, reflecting the said chasis number. Before the vehicle could be assigned Permanent Certificate of registration number, the vehicle met with an accident on 06. 05. 2007. The petitioner lodged a report with respect to the accident, and based on the said report, the police having inspected the care, issued Certificate dated 07. 05. 2007, certifying that the vehicle was damaged. Thereafter, the vehicle through the Dealer, was sent to the company's workshop for repair. The mechanics having inspected the vehicle, felt that the chasis has to be replaced with a new one, and accordingly, after replacing the chasis, addressed letter dated 25. 06. 2007 to the RTA Officer, Regional Transport Authority, informing him that they replaced the chasis of the vehicle and further requested him to make a note of the new chasis number i. e. MBJ11jv4007089-0607. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted application for issuance of permanent Certificate of registration, and he produced letter dated 23. 10. 2007, issued by ICICI Bank, which financed the vehicle, stating that they have no objection to the replacement of the chasis, as also the letter dated 20. 11. 2007, addressed by the manufacturer to the Road Transport Officer, Regional Transport Authority, South zone, informing him that they have replaced the chasis of the vehicle with a new one as the existing chasis got damaged completely and had to be scrapped. The motor Vehicle Inspector, who inspected the vehicle, also vide letter dated 24. 11. 2007, informed the Regional Transport Officer, that the chasis of the vehicle was replaced with a new one and that the old chasis was scrapped. From the narration of the admitted facts, it is clear that the replacement of chasis of the vehicle had occasioned because the vehicle, which is more than a month's old and which was not even given permanent certificate of registration, was damaged completely in an accident. The vehicle was given only temporary registration. The chasis, which is the base frame of a motor vehicle, no doubt, is an important feature of the vehicle, for the very body and engine of the vehicle rests on it, but whether by reason of replacement of the chasis, it would amount to change in the structure of the vehicle, resulting in change of its basic feature, has to be looked into. Except replacement of chasis, which occasioned on account of the accident, there is no other change to the structure of the vehicle. Though the learned Government Pleader contends that replacement of chasis, results in change of basic feature of the vehicle, and that the chasis of the vehicle was replaced without the permission of the respondents, the fact remains, sub-section (3) of Section 52 of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988 enables the owner of the vehicle to replace the engine of the vehicle, but the factum of replacement has to be reported to the authority within 14 days. In A. Chandra Sekhar Reddy v. Union of India, a Full Bench of this Court held that replacement of engine, amounts to alteration in the basic feature. When an engine, is permitted to be replaced without permission, subject to reporting the factum of replacement to the authorities within 14 days from the date of replacement, I see no reason why the respondents should refuse registration of the vehicle, which met with an accident even before it was given permanent registration number. Replacement of the chasis of the vehicle, was not done by the petitioner on his own accord to make unlawful gain or create another vehicle, but was done by the manufacturer with the approval of the insurance company and the bank which financed it, which approval was granted taking into consideration the fact that the chasis was completely damaged in the accident. The fact that the replaced chasis was scrapped by the manufacturer, clearly indicates that the old chasis will not be used once again, much less to create another vehicle. The fact that alteration of vehicle cannot be effected without the consent of the owner of the vehicle, is evident from the fact that sub-section (5) of Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act, clearly states that no person holding a vehicle under a hire-purchase agreement shall make any alteration to the vehicle except with the written consent of the registered owner. Since the company, which manufactured the vehicle, the bank which financed the vehicle and the insurance company which insured the vehicle, had no objection to the replacement of chasis, and the replacement of chasis, having occasioned for a good and genuine reason, and not for any ulterior motive, to cause loss/misuse, there can be no reason for the respondents to refuse registration of the vehicle. For the foregoing reasons, the order dated 21. 01. 2008, passed by the 3rd respondent, refusing registration of the vehicle on the ground that the particulars contained in the Certificate of Registration are at variance with those originally specified by the manufacturer, cannot be sustained, and is accordingly set aside. The 3rd respondent, shall in the light of the material placed by the petitioner, consider the application of the petitioner and register the vehicle of the petitioner, incorporating the new chasis number in the place of the old chasis number, and issue necessary Certificate of registration, expeditiously. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.