Appasaheb Vaman Shinge vs The Deputy Commissioner and Another

Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.—The petitioner has sought for writ of certiorari to quash the endorsement dated, 10.09.2003 issued by 2nd respondent in case No. RTO/BGM/KA-22/9550/03-04 and the order in Registration Appeal No. DCT/No.01/03-04 passed by the Respondents-1 vide Annexures A & B respectively.

The records disclose that the petitioner''s prayer for permission to reduce the seating capacity from 6+1 to 5+1 is rejected by the Regional Transport Officer, Belgaum (Respondent No.2) vide Annexure -A and the same is confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner for Transport (Respondent No. l) vide Annexure-B.

Though the petitioner had sought for reduction of "seating capacity" in his application before original authority, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits before this Court that the petitioner wants to reduce the seats from 6+1 to 5+1 in his three wheeler Mini Door Autorickshaw bearing Registration No. KA.22/9550 for the convenience of the passengers and for the said purpose, he needs permission from the R.T.O. U/S. 52 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 (referred to as "Act" for short). According to him, both the authorities have not considered his prayer in proper perspective.

Per contra, Sri B. Palakshaiah, learned HCGP, submits that as per the amended provision of Section 52 of the Act, there is a total bar for the owner of the Motor Vehicle to alter his vehicle for changing the particulars of the vehicle contained in the certificate of registration, as originally specified by the manufacturer, except for the reasons stated in proviso to Section 52 of the Act. It is clear from Sub-section (1) of Section 52 of the Act that no owner of a motor vehicle shall so alter the vehicle that the particulars contained in the certificate of registration are at variance with those originally specified by the manufacturer. In this view of the matter, he vehemently contends that the petitioner cannot change the seating capacity of the vehicle; the seating capacity of the vehicle in question shall remain as 6+1 and that the petitioner is liable to pay the taxes on the said seating capacity.

The vehicle in question is a "Motor Cab" as defined u/s 2(26) of the act and it has fixed seating capacity. It is a contract carriage as can be seen from Section 2(7)(6)(ii) of the Act.

The provisions of Section-52 of the Act do not debar the owner of the vehicle - petitioner herein to reduce the number of seats for the convenience of the passenger by paying taxes to the Government for 6+1 seating capacity. Further, by such reduction of seats no alteration has to be made in the entry regarding "seating capacity" in the certificate of registration inasmuch as the built-in seating capacity in such case would continue to remain the same irrespective of the reduction in the number of actual seats. Merely by reducing the number of seats for the convenience of the passengers, the "seating capacity" of the vehicle will not change. By the said process, the basic structure/feature of the vehicle also will not be changed. Thus, no permission is required u/s 52 of the Act to reduce number of seats. The above opinion of mine find support from the decision of the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in the case of B. Mohandas and Vs. Registering Authority, Regional Transport Office, Trichur etc. etc., wherein it is observed as under:

"As far as contract carriage vehicles with bodies manufactured by the manufacturers themselves and having a definite seating capacity as designed by the manufacturer, no permission is necessary u/s 52 for reducing the number-of seats as by such reduction, no alternation has to be made in the entry regarding ''seating capacity'' in the certificate of registration. ''Seating Capacity'' in such cases would continue to be the same irrespective of the reduction in the number of actual seats."

In view of the above, the question of refusing the application filed by the Petitioner u/s 52 of the Act on the ground that it adversely affects the interest of revenue would not arise. Hence, the following order is made.

The petitioner is permitted to reduce the seats from 6+1 to 5+1 in his vehicle i.e., three wheeler Mini door Autorickshaw, bearing Registration No. KA. 22/9550. However, it is made clear that the "seating capacity" of the vehicle remains as 6+1 and the petitioner has to pay the taxes on the basis of the seating capacity of 6+1. With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of.