The Delhi High Court held that a road roller is a motor vehicle under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, dismissing the petition challenging the Tribunal's orders on this issue.
Full Text
Translation output
CM(M) 1348/2019 HIGH COURT OF DELHI Date of Decision: 13.09.2019
CM(M) 1348/2019, CM APPL. 40776/2019 & CM APPL. 40777/2019 SURINDER SINGH BHOGAL ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. S.P. Aggarwal and Mr. Sushant Sagar, Advocates.
VERSUS
VINOD SHARMA & ANR ..... Respondents Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI NAJMI WAZIRI, J. (Oral)
JUDGMENT
1. This petition impugns the orders of the learned Tribunal dated 12.10.2018, 28.01.2019 and 22.07.2019 passed in Petition Nos. 678/2018 and 679/2018 on the ground that a road roller, which has been seized on the directions of the Court, is not covered under the definition of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘Act’). The said contention is untenable because the definition of a light motor vehicle under section 2(21) of the Act includes a ‘road roller’; it reads as under:- “„2(21). "light motor vehicle" means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road-roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500] kilograms; 2019:DHC:4568
2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Delhi Motor Vehicle Rules, 1993, do not require registration of a road roller. Be that as it may, insofar as the vehicle itself is covered under the definition of a motor vehicle. There is no reason to interfere with the impugned order.
3. The learned MACT has reasoned as under:
“3. Per contra, it was urged by learned counsel for
petitioners that road roller falls within the definition of
motor vehicles and hence, both the claim petitions are
maintainable. To support his argument, he has relied upon
the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Bose
Ibrahim Vs. State, of Kerala and Anr. decided on
01.02.2001 in Appeal (Civil) No.6216-6222 of 1997, Appeal
(Civil) No.8866-8869 of 1997, Appeal (Civil) No.1542 of 1998 and Appeal (Civil) 2779 of 1998 wherein the same question has arisen before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He has also relied upon judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad titled as STATE OF U.P. THROUGH COLLECTOR, ETAWAH AND ANOTHER VS. SURESH CHANDRA reported as 1995 ACJ 245. 4. I have gone through the record and judgments cited above. The argument of learned counsel for respondent No.2 that the road roller is not a motor vehicle is without any merit. In the judgment titled as Bose Ibrahim (supra), it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:- "The short question that arises per consideration in these appeals is whether motor vehicle as defined in Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act include excavators and road rollers so as to attract the levy under Kerala Tax on entry of motor vehicles into Local Areas Act. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that (i) the excavators and road rollers are not motor vehicles to fall under the definition of motor vehicles under Section 2(j) of the Act, (ii) even if the excavators and road rollers are construed to be motor vehicles for the purpose of Motor Vehicles Act in order to
regulate the usage thereof will not be a motor vehicle in the sense it is adaptable to be used on road in as much as excavators are used in an enclosed area while road rollers are used for the purpose of making roads and not as vehicle on road…………….. Section 2(j) of the Act defines motor vehicle to mean a motor vehicle as defined in Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Central Act 59 of 1988). Subject to the provisions of the Act, Section 3 of the Act enables the levy and collection of tax on the entry of any motor vehicle into local area for use or sale therein which is liable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles act at such rate as may be fixed by the Government………… We hold that the excavators and the road rollers are motor vehicles for the purpose of the motor Vehicles Act and they are registered under that Act…………. Merely because a motor vehicle is put to a specific use such as being confined to an enclosed premises, will not render the same to be a different kind of vehicle. Hence, in our view, the High Court has correctly decided the matter and the impugned order does not call for any interference by us. However, the question whether any motor vehicle has entered into a local area to attract tax under the Entry Tax Act or any concession given under the local Sales Tax Act will have to be dealt with in the course of assessment arising under the Entry Tax Act. Appeals are accordingly dismissed."
5. Similarly, in STATE OF U.P. THROUGH COLLECTOR ETAWAHA AND ANR. (SUPRA), the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad held that road roller was a motor vehicle and that the claim of the claimant Suresh Chandra was maintainable.” (emphasis supplied)
4. When the Act itself includes ‘road-roller’ in the definition of a light motor vehicle and the Supreme Court had held in Bose Ibrahim (supra) that ‘road roller’ is a motor vehicle under the Act, the petitioner’s contention to the contrary is rejected.
5. There is no merit in the petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed.
4,751 characters total
NAJMI WAZIRI, J SEPTEMBER 13, 2019 AB
Upgrade to Pro
This feature is available on the Pro plan. Upgrade to unlock full AI summaries, PDF downloads, and more.