Court: Madras High Court (Madurai Bench)
Bench: MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN
Case No(s). W.P.(MD) No. 9795 of 2008 and W.P.(MD) No. 11415 of 2008
Title C. Paulraj vs The Secretary
Date of Common Judgement : 01 July 2011
BEFORE THE MADURAI
BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 01/07/2011
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN
W.P.(MD) NO.9795 of 2008
AND
W.P.(MD) NO.11415 of 2008
C.Paulraj ... Petitioner in both WPs'
Vs.
W.P.(MD) NO.9795 OF 2008
1.The Secretary
Ministry of Transport
Chennai.
2.The Transport Commissioner
Chennai - 600 005.
3.Regional Transport Officer
Tirunelveli - 627 007.
4.Assistant Registering Authority
Transport Department
Valliyoor, Tirunelveli District - 627
117. ... Respondents
W.P.(MD) NO.11415 OF 2008
1.The Union of India
by its Secretary
Ministry of Transport, New Delhi.
2.The State of Tamil Nadu
by its Secretary
Department of Transport
Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
3.The Central Co-ordination Committee
[Constituted under Persons with
Disabilities (Equal Opportunities,
Protection of Rights and Full
Participation) Act, 1995]
Office of Minister of Welfare, New Delhi.
4.The State Co-ordination Committee
[Constituted under Persons with
Disabilities (Equal Opportunities,
Protection of Rights and Full
Participation) Act, 1995]
Office of Minister of Welfare
Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009. ... Respondents
Prayer IN W.P.(MD) NO.9795 OF 2008
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 1st
and 2nd respondents to allow the 3rd and 4th respondents to treat the vehicle
as an invalid carriage and to issue the permanent registration of the four
wheeler bearing Chasis No.2721645 and Engine No.3967599 in favour of the
petitioner.
Prayer IN W.P.(MD) NO.11415 OF 2008
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents
3 and 4 to advise the respondent No.1 to appropriately enable the physically
challenged person to alter the vehicles to suit the requirement of physically
challenged person and register the same under the Motor Vehicles Act.
For Petitioner
in W.P.No.9795/ 2008 ... Mr.T.Lajapathi
Roy
in W.P.No.11415 / 2008 ... Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy
for
Mr.Ramesh Gopinathan
For Respondents 1 - 4
in W.P.No.9795 / 2008
For Respondents 2 & 4
in W.P.No.11415 / 2008 ... Mr.D.Muruganandam, Additional
Govt. Pleader
For Respondents 1&3
in W.P.No.11415 / 2008 ... Mr.P.Krishnasamy
Senior
Panel Counsel for Government
of India
COMMON ORDER
The petitioner is a Farmer. He is a B.Com., graduate.
While he was working on the installation of a motor pump-set in a well, he fell
down and injured severely at the spinal cord resulting in paralytic condition
of the lower half of his body from the hips downwards. He obtained driving
licence for driving invalid carriages on 13.01.2000.
2. The petitioner purchased an auto-rickshaw with
registration no.TN74-C-0630. He modified the same, so as to make it an invalid
carriage that could be operated by him. That is, he fitted hand break instead
of foot break, by using the services of a mechanic. The said modification was
approved by the Assistant Registering Authority, Transport Department,
Valliyoor, Tirunelveli District, the fourth respondent in W.P.(MD)No.9795 of
2008, on 06.12.1999 and the same was recorded in the R.C. book. He was
also exempted from payment of tax, as per G.O.Ms.No.3352, Home (Transport)
Department, dated 29.12.1976, so long as the vehicle exclusively is used by him
as a physically challenged person.
3. The petitioner sold the said auto-rickshaw and
purchased a second hand Maruthi-800 CC Car with registration no.TN04-B-7688. He
made alterations in the said Car so as to make it as an invalid carriage. That
is, the clutch, break and accelerator were brought to hand operation instead of
leg operation. The said modifications were also approved and recorded by the
fourth respondent in W.P.(MD)No.9795 of 2008 in the R.C. book on 03.06.2002.
4. Thereafter, the petitioner purchased a new Marthi-800
CC Car on 25.06.2008, with Chassis No.2721645 and Engine No.3967599, and
similar modifications were done in the new Car as was done in the earlier Car
bearing registration no.TN04-B-7688, so as to make it as an invalid carriage.
Thereafter, when he approached the third respondent in W.P.(MD) No.9795 of 2008
seeking permission for conversion of Motor Car into invalid carriage and to
register the same under the description "invalid carriage", the third
respondent issued a communication dated 16.07.2008 refusing to entertain his
application on the ground that the Car that was sought to be registered as
invalid carriage, is not an invalid carriage as defined under Section 2(18) of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Further it was stated that the Motor Vehicles Act
does not permit the conversion of a Car into an invalid carriage.
5. In these circumstances, the petitioner has filed the
writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.9795 of 2008 seeking a direction to the
respondents 1 and 2 to allow the third and fourth respondents to treat his
vehicle viz., Maruthi-800 CC, bearing Chasis No.2721645 and Engine No.3967599
as "invalid carriage" and to issue permanent registration of the said
vehicle in his favour.
6. The petitioner filed another writ petition in W.P.(MD)
No.11415 of 2008 seeking a direction to the Central Co-ordination Committee and
the State Co-ordination Committee, constituted under the Persons with
Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full
Participation) Act, 1995, to advise the Secretary, Ministry of Transport,
Government of India to appropriately enable the physically challenged persons
to alter the vehicles to suit their requirement and register the same under the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
7. In both the writ petitions, the respondents have not
filed counter affidavit.
8. While the relief claimed in W.P.(MD) No.9795 of 2008 is
relating to the petitioner, the relief claimed in W.P.(MD) No.11415 of 2008 is
to benefit all the physically challenged persons, as they are facing
difficulties in registering the vehicles as invalid carriage, on making
modifications, so as to drive those vehicles.
9. The grievance of the petitioner is that the
manufacturers have now stopped manufacturing the vehicles specially designed
for disabled persons, due to economic considerations, which forced the
disabled persons to make alterations with the help of mechanics in the
workshops to convert the vehicle as invalid carriage and the physically
challenged persons are facing difficulties in registering those vehicles as
invalid carriage. Without registering the vehicles as invalid carriage, they
could not take those vehicles to ply on the roads and the mobility of the
physically challenged persons would be severely affected. Further, the Government
of India remedied the situation in so far as the two wheelers are concerned, by
issuing a notification in No.RT- 11012/12/01/MVL, dated 23.07.2008, under
Section 52 of the Act, for conversion of two wheelers as invalid carriage.
According to him, the respondents 3 and 4 in W.P.(MD) No.11415 of 2008 shall
take the issue in respect of the four wheelers also, with the first respondent
Government of India, for the benefit of the disabled persons.
10. Heard the submissions made on either side.
11. The petitioner approached the third respondent in
W.P.(MD) No.9795 of 2008 with representation dated 14.07.2008, to register his
vehicle viz., Maruthi-800CC Car, bearing Chassis No.2721645 and Engine
No.3967599, as "invalid carriage", with some modifications, but
without changing the basic feature. The modifications were limited to the
extent of bringing hand operation of clutch, break and accelerator instead of
leg operation. The said modifications were done by a local mechanic in the
workshop.
12. But the third respondent Regional Transport Officer,
Tirunelveli, by a letter dated 16.07.2008 refused to register the same as
invalid carriage, as it is not an invalid carriage as per Section 2(18) of the
Motor Vehicles Act. The contents of the said letter dated 16.07.2008 of the
third respondent Regional Transport Officer, Tirunelveli, is extracted
hereunder:
"I invite your attention
to your representation in the reference first cited.
As per section 2(18) of the
Central Motor Vehicle Act 1988 "invalid carriage" means a motor
vehicle specially designed and constructed, and not merely adapted, for the use
of person suffering some physical defect or disability, and used solely by or
for such person.
In your representation you
have sought permission to convert your Motor
Car into an invalid carriage. The alteration of car into invalid
carriage is not allowed as per the amended MV Act. In view of the above
provision of the act the request for alteration of motor car into invalid
carriage cannot be allowed."
13. According to the third respondent, the Motor Vehicles
Act does not permit conversion of Car into invalid carriage and as per Section
2(18) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 "invalid carriage" means a
motor vehicle specially designed and constructed, and not merely adapted, for
the use of person suffering some physical defect or disability, and used solely
by or for such person.
14. The petitioner has stated that he had no other option
except to avail the service of a mechanic to make alterations in the Car to
convert it into an invalid carriage, since the Maruthi company, which was
manufacturing the special vehicles for disabled persons in the last decades,
have now stopped the manufacture of such vehicles. It is also categorically
averred by the petitioner that no company is manufacturing the specially
designed vehicles for the disabled, both in two-wheeler and four wheeler
sectors, for the past five years. The said fact is not disputed by the learned counsels
appearing for the respondents.
15.At this juncture, it is relevant to note that Section
2(18) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was considered by a learned Judge of this
Court in W.P.(MD) No.4482 of 2008 (decided on 16.05.2008) (R.RAMASAMY VS.
THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT, CHENNAI AND OTHERS) wherein the learned
Judge has held that conversion made by a private mechanic, without changing the
basic feature of the motor vehicle, can be registered as invalid carriage, by
the registering authorities. The word "adapted" in Section 2(18) of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was interpreted by this Court and is held that it
means only "suitable" and it should not be understood that only a
vehicle specially manufactured by the manufacturer could alone be registered as
invalid carriage. At this juncture, it is relevant to extract paras 18.3
to 18.10 of the said judgment, which reads as under:
"18.3.As
per Section 2(18) the expression "invalid carriage" means a motor vehicle
specially designed and constructed, and not merely adapted, for the use of a
person suffering some physical defect or disability, and used solely by or for
such person. The expression "adapted" has not been defined in the
statute. As per Concise Oxford Dictionary 10th Edition, the word
"adapt" is a verb, which means "make suitable for a new use of
purpose".
18.4.The
expression "adapted" has been used in various definition clauses such
as in Sections 2(14), 2(18), 2(22), 2(25), 2(26), 2(28), 2(29), 2(33), 2(35),
2(40) and 2(43). Meaning has to be ascribed to such expression keeping in view
the context in which it has been used. Though ordinarily the word
"adapted" can be considered as past tense of the verb
"adapt", at times such expression "adapted" can be
considered as adjectival. Understood in such a sense, the expression can mean
"suitable".
18.5. In
the context in which it has been used in Section 2(18) the word "adapted"
means suitable. It becomes more clear when the preceding expression refers to
"a motor vehicle specially designed and constructed, and not merely adapted".
18.6. In
several decisions, such expression "adapted" has been understood to mean
"suitable" or "suited".
18.7. In
AIR 1975 SC 17 (BOLANI ORES LTD. V. STATE OF ORISSA), it was observed:-
"19.
While dealing with the English cases it must not be forgotten that the
definition of "motor vehicle" in the Road Traffic Act imports the
element of intention into the definition for ascertaining whether a vehicle is
a motor vehicle. In Maddox v. Storer8 Lord Parker, C.J. was construing the word
"adapted" when used disjunctively with "constructed." He
observed:
"One can get illustration after illustration, on
looking at the Act itself, where 'adapted', when used disjunctively with
'constructed' must mean a physical alteration, and, as it seems to me, other
cases where the word 'adapted' alone is used and where it must be given the
adjectival meaning of being fit and apt for the purpose."
But where the word "adapted" alone has been
used such as in sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 1 of the First Schedule to the
Road Traffic Act, 1960, he was of the view that it was wholly inapt to mean
"altered so as to make fit". He asked "How do you alter a
motor-car so as to make it fit to carry not more than seven passengers"?
It is clearly there standing on its own, susceptible only of meaning "fit
and apt for the purpose."
....
22. As usual references have been made to the
Dictionaries but quite often it is not possible to hold a dictionary in one
hand and the statute to be interpreted in the other for ascertaining the import
and intent of the word or expression used by Legislature. The shade of meaning
of a word, its different connotations and collocations which one finds in a
dictionary does not relieve us of the responsibility of having to make the
ultimate choice of selecting the right meaning. We choose that meaning which is
most apt in the context, colour and diction in which the word is used. The use
of a dictionary ad lib without an analysis of the entire Act, its purpose and
its intent, for ascertaining the meaning in which the Legislature could have
used the word or expression may not lead us to the right conclusion. With this
caution before us for avoiding any of the aforesaid methods which might lead to
a possible incongruity, we will examine the different facets to which our
attention has been drawn.
23. The meaning of the word "adapted" in
Section 2(18) of the Act is itself indicated in Entry 57 of List II of the
Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, which confers a power on the State to tax
vehicles whether propelled mechanically or not and uses the word "suitable"
in relation to its use on the roads. The words "adapted for use" must
therefore be construed as "suitable for use". At any rate, words
"adapted for use" cannot be larger in their import by including
vehicles which are not "suitable for use" on roads. In this sense,
the words "is adapted" for use have the same connotation as "is
suitable" or "is fit" for use on the roads. (emphasis added).
18.8. Similar meaning was attributed by the Supreme Court
in AIR 1992 SC 1371 (M/S.CENTRAL COAL FIELDS LTD. V. STATE OF ORISSA AND
OTHERS).
18.9. In (2004) 6 SCC 210 (GOVERNMENT OF A.P. AND ANOTHER
V. ROAD ROLLERS OWNERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS), the Supreme Court,
while considering the question as to whether a road roller is a motor vehicle
within the meaning of Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, observed:
"5.........Undoubtedly, a roadroller is meant for
repairing roads. This itself shows that it is adapted for use on roads. A
roadroller is not capable of being used off the road. Merely because its
purpose is to repair roads does not mean that it is not suitable or not adapted
for use on roads. We fail to understand from where the High Court concludes
that the connotation of vehicle must mean a conveyance for carrying people or
goods. The definition of motor vehicle does not so provide. Merely because a
vehicle does not carry passengers or goods does not mean that it ceases to be a
motor vehicle. So long as it is a vehicle, which is mechanically propelled, and
is adapted for use on roads, it is a motor vehicle within the meaning of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988."
18.10. From the aforesaid decisions, it is apparent that
the expression "adapted" has been used in different provisions of the
Motor Vehicles Act which carries the meaning of "suitable" or
"capable of being used" on the road. It is used as an
"adjectival" expression rather than a verb."
16. In the said judgment, the learned Judge went into
detail on the issue and held that after the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was
amended by Act 27 of 2000, there is no prohibition for any person including
physically challenged persons to convert the motor vehicles as invalid
carriage, so long as the alterations made does not change the basic feature of
the vehicle. The learned Judge also held that the change of system from leg
operation to hand operation, in so far as the clutch, break and accelerator in
Cars are concerned, the same would not cause a change in the basic feature of
the vehicle. The said judgment attained finality, as no appeal was preferred
against the same, and the same was also not disputed by the learned counsels
appearing for the respondents. In this regard, I feel it appropriate to extract
para 10 of the said judgment, as under:
"10.The provisions contained in Section 52, as they
stand now, do not contemplate any specific prior permission for making any
alteration, save and except what is contemplated in the present Section 52(2).
Moreover, Section 52(1) as it stands now contemplates that the owner of a motor
vehicle should not alter the vehicle in such a manner that the particulars of
the alteration would be at variance with the particulars originally specified
by the Manufacturer. Where the change in the structure of the vehicle does not
have the effect of changing the basic features of the vehicle, it does not come
within the prohibition contemplated in Section 52(1). The above becomes clear
if reference is made to the Explanation, which lays down that for the purpose
of Section 52 "alteration" means a change in the structure of a
vehicle which results in a change in its basic feature."
17.In view of the categorical pronouncement of this Court
in the aforesaid judgment, in my view, the prayer as sought for in the writ
petition in W.P.(MD) No.9795 of 2008 has to be allowed.
18.In so far as the writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.11415 of
2008 is concerned, though the prayer is for alteration of vehicles to suit the
requirement of physically challenged persons seeking statutory recognition of
alteration of vehicles for registering the same as "invalid
carriages", it is submitted that so far as two - wheelers are concerned,
the Government of India has already issued a notification in
No.RT-11012/12/01/MVL, dated 23.07.2008 under Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, taking into account the non- availability of invalid carriages in the
market.
19.The petitioner has categorically pleaded that now both
the three wheelers and four wheelers are not available in the market, as it is
not economically viable for the manufacturers to manufacture and market them
for the physically challenged persons.
20.The object of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal
Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 is to give
effect to the proclamation on the full participation and equality of people
with disabilities in the Asian and Pacific Region. If the mobility of the
physically challenged persons are curtailed, that would result in perpetuating
the inequality and the object of the Act could be defeated. One of the objects
of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and
Full Participation) Act, 1995 is to spell out the responsibility of the State
towards the prevention of disabilities, protection of rights, provision of
medical care, education, training, employment and rehabilitation of persons
with disabilities. That is, the State should make available the invalid
carriages in the market. Till such time, the State should permit the physically
disabled persons to convert their vehicles into invalid carriage, as otherwise,
the rehabilitation of the persons with disabilities could never happen.
21.Likewise, the other objects of the Persons with
Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation)
Act, 1995 are to create barrier free environment; to remove any discrimination
in the sharing of development benefits; to counteract any situation of the
abuse and the exploitation; to lay down strategies for comprehensive
development of programmes and services and equalisation of opportunities and to
make special provision for the integration of persons with disabilities into
the social main stream.
22.In my view, until the manufacturers are manufacturing
the specially designed vehicles for the physically disabled persons, it is
difficult to achieve the aforesaid objects of the Persons with Disabilities
(Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.
Atleast, the physically challenged persons shall be permitted to convert the
vehicle as "invalid carriage" as that could enable them to drive
those vehicles, without changing the basic feature and the same is permissible
under Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act and has been approved by this Court
in the judgment dated 16.05.2005 passed in W.P.(MD) No.4482 of 2008, referred
to above.
23.Furthermore, the respondents 3 and 4 in W.P.(MD)
No.11415 of 2008 are statutory bodies constituted under Sections 3 and 13 of
the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and
Full Participation) Act, 1995. Sections 8 and 18 of the Persons with
Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation)
Act, 1995 deals with the functions of the Central Co-ordination Committee and
State Co-ordination Committee, which reads as follows:
"8.Functions of the Central Co-ordination Committee.
-(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the function of the Central
Coordination Committee shall be to serve as the national focal point on
disability matters and facilitate the continuous evolution of a comprehensive
policy towards solving the problems faced by persons with disabilities.
(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality
of the foregoing, the Central Coordination Committee may perform all or any of
the following functions, namely:-
(a) review and coordinate the activities of all the
Departments of Government and other Governmental and non-Governmental
Organizations which are dealing with matters relating to persons with
disabilities;
(b) develop a national policy to address issues faced by,
persons with disabilities;
(c) advise the Central Government on the formulation of
policies, programmes, legislation and projects with respect to disability;
(d) take up the cause of persons with disabilities with
the concerned authorities and the international organizations with a view, to
provide for schemes and projects for the disabled in the national plans and
other programmes and policies evolved by the international agencies;
(e) review in consultation with the donor agencies their
funding policies from the perspective of their impact on persons with
disabilities;
(f) take such other steps to ensure barrier-free
environment in public places, work-places, public utilities, schools and other
institutions;
(g) monitor and evaluate the impact of policies and
programmes designed for achieving equality and full participation of persons
with disabilities;
(h) to perform such other functions as may be prescribed
by the Central Government.
18.Functions of the State Co-ordination Committee. - (1)
Subject to the provisions of this Act, the function of the State Co-ordination
Committee shall be to serve as the state focal point on disability matters and
facilitate the continuous evolution of a comprehensive policy towards solving
the problems faced by persons with disabilities.
(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality
of the foregoing function the State Coordination Committee may, within the
State perform all or any of the following functions, namely:-
(a) review and coordinate the activities of all the
Departments of Government and other Governmental and Non-Governmental
Organizations which are dealing with matters relating to persons with
disabilities.,
(b) develop a State policy to address issues faced by
persons with disabilities;
(c) advise the State Government on the formulation of
policies, Programmes, legislation and projects with respect to disability;
(d) review, in consultation with the donor agencies,
their funding from the perspective of their impact on persons with
disabilities;
(e) take such other steps to ensure barrier-free
environment in public places, work places, public utilities, schools and other
institutions;
(f) monitor and evaluate the impact of policies and
programmes designed for achieving equality and full participation of persons
with disabilities;
(g) to perform such other functions as may be prescribed
by the State Government.
24.In the result,
(i) the third respondent in W.P.(MD) No.9795 of 2008 is
directed to treat the petitioner's vehicle Maruthi-800 CC Car bearing Chassis
No.2721645 and Engine No.3967599 as an invalid carriage and issue permanent
registration in favour of the petitioner, in the light of the judgment of this
Court dated 16.05.2008 in W.P.(MD) No.4482 of 2008, within a period of four
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and
(ii) in accordance with Sections 8 and 18 of the Persons
with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full
Participation) Act, 1995, the respondents 3 and 4 in W.P.(MD) No.11415 of 2008
are directed to consider the issue relating to conversion of vehicles into
invalid carriage and advise suitably the first respondent - Government of
India, to appropriately enable the physically challenged persons to alter the
three wheeler and four wheeler vehicles also to suit their requirements and
register the same under the Motor Vehicles Act, as expeditiously as possible.
25.Both the writ petitions are disposed of with the
aforesaid observations and directions. No costs.
To,
1.The Secretary Ministry of Transport Chennai.
2.The Transport Commissioner Chennai - 600 005.
3.Regional Transport Officer Tirunelveli - 627 007.
4.Assistant Registering Authority Transport Department
Valliyoor, Tirunelveli District - 627 117.
5.The Secretary to Government Ministry of Transport
Government of India New Delhi
6.The Secretary to Government Government of Tamil Nadu
Department of Transport Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009
7.The Central Co-ordination Committee [Constituted under
Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full
Participation) Act, 1995] Office of Minister of Welfare New Delhi.
8.The State Co-ordination Committee [Constituted under
Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full
Participation) Act, 1995] Office of Minister of Welfare Fort St.George, Chennai
- 600 009.
