HYDERABAD: A division bench of the High Court has upheld an order of a single judge who directed the Regional Transport Authority, South Zone, Hyderabad, to register the vehicle of the petitioner, incorporating the new chassis number and issue necessary certificate of registration.
The bench of Acting Chief Justice Ramesh Ranganathan and Justice T Rajani was dismissing an appeal by the secretary to RTA challenging the order of the single judge contending that Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 does not permit any alteration to be made to the motor vehicle which is at variance with the particulars originally specified by the manufacturer.
As for the case, the petitioner’s vehicle met with an accident after having temporary registration. After filing a report before the police station concerned, he took the vehicle to the company’s workshop where it was found that the chassis of the vehicle was completely damaged and it was replaced with a new one and the old chassis was scrapped.
After fulfilling all the requirements with the financier and the insurance company, he filed an application before the RTA seeking registration of the vehicle with new chassis number. The RTA refused to register his vehicle on the ground that the chassis has been changed. He moved the high court and a single judge allowed the petition by directing the RTA to consider the application of the petitioner and register the vehicle. Aggrieved with the same, the RTA filed an appeal assailing the single judge order.
After hearing the case and perusing the material on record, the bench said that “Section 52(1) of the Act is a general norm that the vehicle, which is delivered by the manufacturer, should be the same, as is brought for registration before the registering authority. It cannot by any stretch of interpretation be understood as a clog on every alteration, much less on an alteration which is compelled by circumstances beyond the reach of the owner.”
“Section 52 as a whole, it is clear that sub-section (1) disables the owner of the vehicle, ordinarily, from so altering the vehicle which would result in variance of the particulars contained in the certificate of registration with those originally specified by the manufacturer.”
“Even in those rare cases, where such an alteration has been made in the motor vehicle without the approval of the registering authority, Section 52(3) obligates the owner of the vehicle to report the alteration to the registering authority, and forward the certificate of registration to enable him to record the alterations, made to the motor vehicle, in the registration certificate”, the bench observed.
The bench dismissed the appeal saying that it do not find any infirmity in the impugned order.