- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Mohd. Javeed v. Union Of India (Ministry Of Surface And Transport), New Delhi And Others
Summary of the Opinion
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioner purchased a Toyota Innova (chassis number MBJ11JB4007072937/01/07) and was issued a Temporary Registration Certificate on 5.3.2007. Before permanent registration was effected, the vehicle met with an accident on 6.5.2007 and the petitioner lodged a police report. The manufacturer’s workshop concluded the chassis was completely damaged and replaced it with a new chassis (No. MBJ11JV4007089266–060), scrapping the old chassis. The petitioner completed formalities with the financier and insurer and applied to the Regional Transport Authority (3rd respondent) on 20.10.2007 to register the vehicle by incorporating the new chassis number into the Registration Certificate, enclosing Forms 21 and 22, sale invoice, police certificate, dealer/manufacturer letter, and financier’s No Objection Certificate. The Motor Vehicle Inspector inspected and confirmed the chassis replacement and scrapping of the old chassis. By order dated 21.1.2008 the 3rd respondent returned the application refusing to register the vehicle on the ground that the particulars in the Certificate of Registration would be at variance with those originally specified by the manufacturer, invoking Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The petitioner challenged that order by filing the present writ petition.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, in the facts of this case, the 3rd respondent was justified in refusing to register the vehicle on the ground that the particulars contained in the Certificate of Registration would be at variance with those originally specified by the manufacturer, i.e., whether replacement of the chassis under the given circumstances amounts to an "alteration" within the meaning of Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, justifying refusal of registration.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments
- The vehicle had only temporary registration when the accident occurred; therefore the petitioner did not "alter" a registered vehicle.
- The chassis replacement was necessitated because the original chassis was completely damaged in the accident and was scrapped; the replacement was carried out by the manufacturer's workshop and not by the petitioner to effectuate any unlawful change.
- The manufacturer, insurer and financier approved or had no objection to the chassis replacement and issued certificates/letters to that effect; these documents accompanied the petitioner's application for registration.
- Section 52's prohibition on alteration is inapplicable where replacement is necessitated by accident and is not an act intended to change the vehicle's basic feature for an improper purpose; hence the 3rd respondent's refusal was illegal and arbitrary and should be set aside.
Respondents' Arguments (2nd and 3rd respondents)
- If a vehicle is completely damaged and incapable of being used on the road, its registration is liable to be cancelled; therefore replacement and re-registration cannot be permitted as if nothing has happened.
- Replacement of the chassis without prior permission amounts to varying the specifications originally specified by the manufacturer and is impermissible under Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
- Certificates from manufacturer/dealer/financier do not bind the registering authority; the petitioner did not obtain prior permission from the authority before replacing the damaged chassis.
- The petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 but did not avail it and instead filed the writ petition; on these grounds the petition should be dismissed.
- Reliance was placed on a Full Bench decision: A. Chandra Sekhar Reddy v. Union of India (AIR 2002 AP 148) to support the principle that change in structure resulting in a change of basic feature must not be at variance with the Certificate of Registration.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| A. Chandra Sekhar Reddy v. Union of India, 2002 (1) ALD 28 : AIR 2002 AP 148 (Full Bench) | Held that replacement of an engine amounts to an alteration in the basic feature of a vehicle (i.e., replacement can amount to "alteration"). | The Court relied on the Full Bench decision to observe that engine replacement had been treated as an alteration but noted that engine replacement is permitted without prior approval provided the fact is reported to the registering authority within 14 days (sub‑section (3) of Section 52). By analogy, the Court saw no reason to refuse registration where the chassis was replaced for a genuine reason, with insurer and financier consent, manufacturer involvement, and scrapping of the old chassis. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court framed the sole question as whether the 3rd respondent was justified in refusing registration on the ground of variance with manufacturer-specified particulars under Section 52.
The Court first set out the operative language of Section 52 (including its explanation defining "alteration" as a change in the structure of a vehicle which results in a change in its basic feature) and noted the exceptions and reporting provisions (particularly sub-section (3) allowing certain replacements subject to reporting).
The Court then reviewed the admitted facts: the vehicle had only temporary registration when the accident occurred; the chassis was found completely damaged by the manufacturer's workshop and was replaced by a new chassis; the old chassis was scrapped; the Motor Vehicle Inspector inspected and confirmed the replacement; and the financier (ICICI Bank) and the manufacturer issued letters indicating no objection/that replacement occurred.
Applying the statutory provision and the facts:
- The Court acknowledged that the chassis is a central structural feature but emphasized that the statutory definition of "alteration" requires a change that results in a change of the vehicle's basic feature.
- The Court noted the Full Bench authority that replacement of an engine amounts to alteration, but it also noted that Section 52(3) permits engine replacement provided the fact is reported within 14 days—illustrating that certain replacements are contemplated by the statute and can be regularized post‑facto.
- Given that the chassis replacement was occasioned by an accident before permanent registration, was effected by the manufacturer, was accompanied by insurer and financier consent, and the old chassis was scrapped (making misuse or creation of another vehicle unlikely), the Court concluded that the replacement did not represent an unlawful alteration for an improper purpose.
- The Court reasoned that because the replacement was genuine, documented, and approved by the stakeholders (manufacturer, insurer, bank), there was no reason for the registering authority to refuse to register the vehicle merely because the numeric chassis particulars would differ from those originally specified in the temporary documents.
On this analysis the Court found the 3rd respondent's refusal unsustainable and directed reconsideration and registration incorporating the new chassis number.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The writ petition was allowed and the impugned order dated 21.1.2008 was set aside. The Court ordered that 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."
DISPOSITION: The writ petition is allowed; the order refusing registration is quashed; the 3rd respondent must consider and register the vehicle incorporating the new chassis number. No costs were awarded.
Implications: The direct effect is that the petitioner is entitled to have the vehicle registered with the new chassis number and to obtain the Certificate of Registration. The opinion does not purport to establish a broader binding precedent beyond the facts considered; it resolves the statutory interpretation and application of Section 52 to these admitted facts and orders registration accordingly.
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 MBJ11JB4007072937/01/07. The vehicle was given Temporary Registration No. AP 09 CHT/R 4288 on 5.3.2007 and Temporary Registration Certificate also. While so, the vehicle met with an accident on 6.5.2007, 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 21.1.2008 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.
3. The 3rd respondent filed counter. The learned Government Pleader for Transport, 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, 2002 (1) ALD 28 : AIR 2002 AP 148. 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.
4. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Transport, 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 21.1.2008, 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?
5. 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.—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:
Provided that where the owner of a motor vehicle makes modification of the engine, or any part thereof, of a vehicle for facilitating its operation by different type of fuel or source of energy including battery, compressed natural gas, solar power, liquid petroleum gas or any other fuel or source of energy, by fitment of a conversion kit, such modification shall be carried out subject to such conditions as may be prescribed;
Provided further that the Central Government may prescribe specifications, conditions for approval, retro-fitment and other related matters for such conversion kits;
Provided also that the Central Government may grant exemption for alteration of vehicles in a manner other than specified above, for any specific purpose.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, authorise, subject to such conditions as may be specified in the notification, and permit any person owning not less than ten transport vehicles to alter any vehicle owned by him so as to replace the engine thereof with engine of the same make and type, without the approval of registering authority.
(3) Where any alteration has been made in the motor vehicle without the approval of registering authority or by reason of replacement of its engine without such approval under sub-section (2), the owner of the vehicle shall, within fourteen days of the making of the alteration, report the alteration to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction he resides and shall forward the Certificate of Registration to that authority together with the prescribed fee in order that particulars of registration may be entered thereon.
(4) A registering authority other than the original registering authority making any such entry shall communicate the details of the entry to the original registering authority.
(5) Subject to the provisions made under sub-sections (1), (2), (3) and (4), 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.
Explanation:—For the purposes of this section, “alteration” means a change in the structure of a vehicle which results in a change in its basic feature.
6. From a reading of the above provision, it becomes clear that subject to the exceptions provided thereunder, 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. The explanation appended to the section, for the purposes of the said section, defines “alteration” to mean a change in the structure of a vehicle, which results in a change in its basic feature. Admittedly, in the instant case, the chasis of the vehicle had to be replaced with a new one, and it is the case of the respondents that the chasis was changed without obtaining permission from them. Whether such replacement of chasis, would amount to change in the basic feature of the vehicle, has to be considered, in the light of the admitted facts and circumstances of the case, which run thus.
7. The petitioner purchased Innova vehicle on 5.3.2007 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 5.3.2007, reflecting the said chasis number. Before the vehicle could be assigned Permanent Certificate of Registration number, the vehicle met with an accident on 6.5.2007 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 7.5.2007, 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 25.6.2007 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.
8. 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 (supra), 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.
9. For the foregoing reasons, the order dated 21.1.2008, 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.
10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.
Alert