Allowed

M/S.Laxmi Cranes & Trailers (P) Ltd. v. Joint Regional Transport Officer

Kerala HC2 Feb 2012WA/145/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed writ petitions and appeals against orders of the Regional Transport Officers. The court directed the RTO to certify the original gross vehicle weight of 63 tonnes for a vehicle combination retaining the same trailer. It quashed a penalty charge memo for alleged overload, setting aside the order to verify facts with the consignor and permitting trailer attachment pending fin

What did the court decide?

Directed RTO to certify 63 tonnes gross weight; set aside penalty memo with direction to verify facts; permitted trailer attachment pending liability adjudication.

M/S.Laxmi Cranes & Trailers (P) Ltd. Vs Joint Regional… — Company and Corporate | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

¶4

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/13TH MAGHA 1933

¶7

WA.No. 145 of 2012 ()

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WPC.575/2012 DATED 19-01-2012

¶9

APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER:

¶10

M/S.LAXMI CRANES & TRAILERS (P) LTD VII/602-A, KUNDANNOOR JUNCTION, MARADU ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA STATE, PIN-682 304 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR SUJITH K.BHASI.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1. JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA STATE PIN.682 011.

¶14

2. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER CIVIL STATION, ERNAKULAM. PIN-682 030.

¶15

R BY MR.LIJU STEPHEN, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶16

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-02-2012, ALONG WITH WPC. 11179/2011 & WPC. 26801/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

W.A.NO.145/2012

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS

¶20

ANNEXURE- I : COPY OF INTERIM ORDER MADE IN WP(C)NO.11179/2011 DATED 12/04/2011.

// TRUE COPY //

PA TO JUDGE.

C.R.

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH, JJ.

¶26

.................................................................... W.A. No.145 of 2012, WP(C) Nos.11179 & 26801 of 2011

¶27

Dated this the 2^nd day of February, 2012.

¶28

J U D G M E N T

¶29

Ramachandran Nair, J.

¶30

The issue raised in the Writ Appeal and in the Writ Petitions is one and the same, and therefore, at the request of the learned counsel for the appellant, we posted the WP(C)s also along with the Writ Appeal. We heard learned counsel for appellant/petitioner and learned Government Pleader for the respondents and proceed to dispose of the cases by this common judgment. The documents referred to are those produced in WP(C) No.11179/2011.

¶31

The appellant/petitioner is engaged mainly in transport of transformers of abnormal size manufactured by a Kerala Government Company by name, TELK, located at Angamaly around 40 KMs away from Cochin Port. The appellant/petitioner had a tractor-trailor-combination with Registration No.KL-07R 3753 with a certified gross vehicle

¶32

W.A. No.145 of 2012, WP(C) Nos.11179 & 26801 of 2011 -2-

¶33

weight of 63 tonnes. However, when the prime mover namely the tractor became old, the appellant / petitioner purchased a modern Tata prime mover of almost the same size as the old one with two wheels in the front axle and four wheels each in two rear axles. The appellant after purchase of the new tractor (prime mover) from Tata applied for detachment of the trailor from the old tractor with registration number above stated, and based on the detachment approved by the RTO under interim orders of this Court, the Joint RTO, Tripunithura has registered the new prime mover with registration No.KL39 C 5877. As per the Motor Vehicles Rules the old trailor attached to the new prime mover is given the same RC number.

¶34

The appellant/petitioner's first grievance is with regard to the low gross vehicle weight certified for the new prime mover with the old trailor, which is only 49 tonnes as against 63 tonnes originally certified for the old tractor with the same trailor. The Joint RTO relied on clause (vi) of Item II of Schedule to notification SO 728(E) dated 18/10/1996 to

¶35

W.A. No.145 of 2012, WP(C) Nos.11179 & 26801 of 2011 -3-

¶36

certify the low gross vehicle weight for this new prime mover with the old trailor registered by him. Learned Government Pleader also supported the Joint RTO's order with regard to certification of gross vehicle weight by relying on the above notification issued by the Central Government. However, learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner submitted that the clause relied on by the Joint RTO does not apply to appellant / petitioner's vehicle because though the tractor referred to in the above entry in the notification is of the type mentioned therein, so far as the trailor is concerned, appellant's trailor has 16 wheels as against 12 wheels for the trailor referred to in the above clause of the notification. Photographs of both the tractor trailors (new and old) produced before us by the appellant/petitioner clearly show that the trailor that was attached to the old tractor which is now attached to the new tractor has 16 wheels and with the prime mover the total number of wheels goes to 26. However, the entry in the notification talks about trailor with 12 wheels and tractor with 10 wheels. Certainly the additional four wheels the trailor has

¶37

W.A. No.145 of 2012, WP(C) Nos.11179 & 26801 of 2011 -4-

¶38

adds more strength and capacity to it over the carrying capacity of the 12 wheeled trailor covered by the Government notification above referred. In short, the entry relied on by the Joint RTO in the notification based on which he reduced the gross vehicle weight from 63 tonnes to 49 tonnes is not applicable for appellant / petitioner's vehicle. Since the old prime mover with the same trailor was certified with 63 tonnes of gross vehicle weight and since the prime mover now replaced by the appellant / petitioner is of the same type with same number of axles and wheels, we are of the view that in the absence of any prohibition in the Motor Vehicles Rules, the appellant / petitioner is entitled to retain the gross vehicle weight at the same level permitted in the RC book issued for the old tractor-trailor-combination. It may also be noticed from the records that the case booked by the RTO is that the appellant / petitioner has been transporting without any difficulty big size transformers of around 60 tonnes weight from the TELK to the Port Trust on several occassions. So much so, we feel the reduction of gross vehicle weight to the

¶39

W.A. No.145 of 2012, WP(C) Nos.11179 & 26801 of 2011 -5-

¶40

new tractor with the old trailor attached to it is without any justification. We accordingly, hold that the appellant / petitioner is entitled to retention of same gross vehicle weight of 63 tonnes for his new tractor-trailor-combination so long as the trailor retained is one and the same. In the circumstances, we direct the Joint RTO, Tripunithura to certify 63000 KGs as gross vehicle weight in the place of 49000 KGs certified in the RC book issued for the tractor-trailorcombination with registration No.KL-39 C 5877.

¶41

The next challenge made by the appellant / petitioner is against the charge memo produced as Ext.P8 in WP(C) No.11179/2011 demanding Rs.1,43,000/- towards penalty for the overload carried by the appellant / petitioner. Admittedly, the check report is of May, 2009 and the RTO demanded the amount only when the appellant applied for detachment certificate for registration of the new prime mover with the old trailor. There is no justification as to why the proceedings were not finalised against the appellant / petitioner until now. Further, the reason for the penalty based

¶42

W.A. No.145 of 2012, WP(C) Nos.11179 & 26801 of 2011 -6-

¶43

on check report is the alleged transport of excess load of 1,41,415 KGs. This overload is determined by assuming that a weight of 1,82,375 KGs was transported by the appellant / petitioner in the tractor-trailor-combination. In the first place, the allegation appears to be unbelievable because such a huge load cannot be loaded on to the trailor. Secondly the Company, which gave the transport contract, which is a Government Company, has issued Ext.P10 certifying that the goods of the weight of 1,82,375 KGs forming transformer system was transported in 11 truck loads after dismantling. If these are facts, certainly the check memo itself is issued based on absolutely wrong assumption of facts.

¶44

Learned Government Pleader submitted that the veracity of Ext.P10 needs to be verified. We do not think a Government Company will issue a bogus certificate that too for production before a Government Department. If there is a controversy on the factual position, we feel, the RTO should consider the matter with reference to Ext.P10 certificate produced and after conducting enquiry and if necessary the

¶45

W.A. No.145 of 2012, WP(C) Nos.11179 & 26801 of 2011 -7-

¶46

RTO should visit the TELK factory and verify whether the transformer system was transported in dismantled condition, and if so to revoke the charge memo issued. Since the data on weight, size etc. of the transformer will be on record of the Company, the RTO can certainly ascertain the position even in respect of the transformer transported in May, 2009, which led to issuance of check memo, and issue fresh orders after giving opportunity to the appellant / petitioner.

¶47

We, therefore set aside Ext.P8 check memo with a direction to the RTO to conduct enquiry with the TELK, verify the correctness of the certificate issued by them and also verify the weight of the transformer and its parts transported, pattern of transport including the number of trips run and also even the charges collected by the appellant / petitioner and pass orders after giving an opportunity to the appellant / petitioner.

¶48

The last issue pertains to appellant / petitioner's request for attachment of another trailor to the old prime mover bearing Regn.No.KL-7 R 3753. Since this is declined

¶49

W.A. No.145 of 2012, WP(C) Nos.11179 & 26801 of 2011 -8-

¶50

only because of the check memo which we have vacated, we direct the RTO, Ernakulam to examine the new trailor purchased and produced and permit attachment subject to Rules without any delay. However, as and when proceedings are finalised afresh with regard to the check memo issued, the appellant / petitioner will be liable to pay penalty subject to his right of appeal to contest. However, approval for attachment of the trailor need not wait for completion of adjudication, which will be completed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶51

We also make it clear that the appellant / petitioner shall not part with possession or transfer both the tractortrailor-combinations with above registration numbers till final adjudication and settlement of liability, if any, pursuant to check memo as above.

¶52

Before parting with the matter, we feel manufacturing industries in the State particularly Government Companies like TELK should have suitable vehicles for transport of goods produced by them. Therefore, the Motor

¶53

W.A. No.145 of 2012, WP(C) Nos.11179 & 26801 of 2011 -9-

¶54

Vehicles Department should take a realistic view while granting approval of registration and certification of gross vehicle weight for the vehicle concerned, particularly keeping in mind the distance of transport, nature of the road used etc., and if necessary, relaxation should be made. In cases like this, we feel the RTO should before passing final orders get guidelines from the Transport Commissioner who certainly should exercise his discretion and permit relaxation to promote the business of industries in the State at least.

¶55

The Writ Appeal and these Writ Petitions are allowed to the above extent.

¶56

(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE)

¶57

(BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH, JUDGE)

¶58

M/S.Laxmi Cranes & Trailers (P) Ltd. v. Joint Regional Transport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Laxmi Cranes & Trailers (P) Ltd. v. Joint Regional Transport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sulthan Gold International Vs State of Kerala

Sunil M.K Vs State of Kerala

State of Kerala and Another Vs K.Balasubramanyan & Another

State of Kerala Vs Koya.K.K.

R.Geethakumary Vs Madhusoodanan Nair

Universal Marvas Print World Vs Commercial Taxes Inspctor