1. Ajay Agrawal S/o Sagarmal Agrawal Aged About 54 Years R/o Village Reda Raigarh v. 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Transport, Raipur District - Raipur
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:9688 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5173 of 2024 1. Ajay Agrawal S/o Sagarmal Agrawal Aged About 54 Years R/o Village Reda Raigarh, Tahsil And District - Raigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Transport, Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 2. Commissioner Transport Department Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 3. Regional Transport Authority Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. Flying Squad Transport Department, Bilaspur District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondents Cause title is taken from the Case Information System For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Shri Rajendra Tripathi & Shri V.K. Sharma, Advocates For Respondent/State : Shri Shreyansh Mehta, Panel Lawyer Order on Board By Bibhu Datta Guru, J. 25/2/2025 1. By the present petition, the petitioner, who is the owner of Goods Vehicle bearing registration No.CG-13-AY-54421, seeking a direction towards the respondent authorities to refund the excess payment of fine 1 henceforth ‘the Vehicle’ as penalty for overload which has been taken three times for the same 2 vehicle. 2. (a) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the vehicle of the petitioner was caught by the Flying Squad and found overload of five tonnes. Owing to said overload, a penalty of Rs.60,000/- was imposed upon the petitioner under the provisions of Sections 113/194(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 19882 and also imposed a fine of Rs.500/- for disobedience of order, obstruction and refusal of information as required under Section 179(1) of the Act, 1988. Thus, total fine of Rs.60,500/- has been imposed upon the petitioner by a challan dated 1-4-2024 and thereafter, the amount of penalty has been recovered from the petitioner. (b) By referring the gazette notification dated 25-10-2021, learned counsel would submit that the rate of penalty has been prescribed under Section 194(1) for vehicle carrying more than the permitted load for first offence is Rs.10,000/- + Rs.2,000/- extra for each tonne of excess load. However, the Flying Squad without adhering to the said notification imposed the exorbitant penalty of Rs.60,500/-, which is contrary to the provisions prescribed by the Department itself. The Flying Squad should have imposed the penalty amount of Rs.10,000/- for overload and Rs.10,000/- (Rs.2,000/- extra for each tonne of excess load i.e. five tonnes), but it has imposed the penalty of Rs.60,500/-, which is illegal, arbitrary and not at all sustainable in the eyes of law. 2 henceforth the ‘Act, 1988’ 3. (i) By referring the document Annexure-R/3, learned counsel 3 appearing for the State would submit that the vehicle of the petitioner, which is overloaded of five tonnes, caught by the Flying Squad and thereafter, as per Section 113/194(1) imposed the penalty upon the owner & driver of the vehicle. For overloading Rs.10,000/-; for excess load of five tonnes Rs.10,000/- (Rs.2,000/- for each tonne); and penalty of Rs.500/- for disobedience of order under Section 179(1) of the Act, 1988, therefore, the total fine of Rs.40,500/- (on owner and driver) has been imposed and e-Challan has been prepared. By referring the status of e-Challan, learned counsel would submit that till date the petitioner has not paid the penalty amount. (ii) Learned counsel would submit that Section 113(3) of the Act, 1988 provides that no person shall drive or cause or allow to be driven in any public place any motor vehicle or trailer--(a) the unladen weight of which exceeds the unladen weight specified in the certificate of registration of the vehicle, or (b) the laden weight of which exceeds the gross vehicle weight specified in the certificate of registration. The notification dated 25-10-2021, which has been relied by the petitioner, prescribed the penalty under Section 194(1) i.e. Rs.10,000/- + Rs.2,000/- for every additional tonne of excess load together with the liability to pay charges for off-loading of the excess load. Hence, the imposition of penalty on the owner & driver of the vehicle, who have allowed the vehicle to be driven, is just and proper warranting no interference of this Court. 4 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents. 5. Section 113(3) and 194(1) of the Act, 1988 provide as under : 113. Limits of weight and limitations on use.-- xxx xxx xxx (3) No person shall drive or cause or allow to be driven in any public place any motor vehicle or trailer-- (a) the unladen weight of which exceeds the unladen weight specified in the certificate of registration of the vehicle, or (b) the laden weight of which exceeds the gross vehicle weight specified in the certificate of registration. xxx xxx xxx 194. Driving vehicle exceeding permissible weight.--(1) Whoever drives a motor vehicle or causes or allows a motor vehicle to be driven in contravention of the provisions of section 113 or section 114 or section 115 shall be punishable with fine of twenty thousand rupees and an additional amount of two thousand rupees per tonne of excess load, together with the liability to pay charges for off-loading of the excess load. Provided that such motor vehicle shall not be allowed to move before such excess load is removed or is caused or allowed to be removed by the person in control of such motor vehicle. xxx xxx xxx 6. A conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions, it is quite vivid that the person who drives a motor vehicle or allows a motor vehicle to be driven in contravention of the provisions of Section 113 both are liable to be punishable under the provisions of Section 194 of the Act, 1988 and hence the authorities have rightly imposed the penalty by issuing challan on the first and second party i.e. Rs.20,000/- for overload and Rs.20,000/- for excess loading and Rs.500/- for disobedience of order, 5 obstruction and refusal of information as required under Section 179(1) of the Act, 1988 i.e. total amount of Rs.40,500/-. 7. The imposition of penalty appears to be just and proper and the same is in accordance with Sections 113(3) and 194(1) of the Act, 1988. There is no illegality or infirmity. Since in the reply the State has categorically stated that till date petitioner has not deposited the penalty amount, there is no question of refund of the said amount to the petitioner. 8.
Decision
In the result, the writ petition, sans merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s). Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Gowri K GOWRI SANKARA RAO Digitally signed by K GOWRI SANKARA RAO Date: 2025.02.25 17:56:35 +0530