Karnataka High Court Calls For Review Of Motor Vehicles Act, Addition Of Definitions On Vehicle Classification & Toll Collection

The Karnataka High Court directed the Union Ministry of Surface Transport, to undertake a review of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and insert appropriate clarificatory definitions, to address the evolving complexities of vehicular classifications and toll collection.

A single judge, Justice M Nagaprasanna said, “The legislative framework especially the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 calls for a re-examination, qua the description of vehicles. The Union Ministry of Surface Transport, would do well to undertake a review and insert appropriate clarificatory definitions to address the evolving complexities of vehicular classifications and toll collections.”

The direction was issued after the court noted that while the Motor Vehicles Act defines classes of vehicles for regulatory purposes, toll classification is governed solely by the National Highways Act, the Fee Rules and the Concessionaire agreement.

Further under provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, vehicles with upto 7500 Kgs unladen weight is a light motor vehicle and beyond 12000 Kgs. is a heavy passenger motor vehicle. There is a vaccum in regards to what happens to vehicles between 7500 and 12000 Kgs.

The court has also said that “While the Motor Vehicles Act defines classes of vehicles for regulatory purposes, toll classification is governed solely by the National Highways Act, the Fee Rules and the Concessionaire agreement.”

Karavali Bus Owners Association and other bus operators of Mangalore and Udupi Districts had appraoched the court submitting that they operate stage carriages and they move through Hejamadi and Sastana toll plazas among others. The fare that will be charged on every trip of each vehicle should be taken into consideration on the laden weight of the vehicles, which is between 7,500 and 12,000 Kgs. insofar as mini vehicles are concerned.

The aforesaid two toll plazas deduct from the FASTag wallet of the petitioners on the vehicles passing through FASTag ID which is linked to the FASTag account, when it is scanned at the toll plazas. However, notwithstanding the said fee paid to enter the toll plaza, the 3rd respondent – Udupi Sasthana Tollway Private Limited without notice to the petitioners has been deducting additional toll charges from the FASTag wallet account of all the stage carriage permit holders of the Association. Following which they gave a represenation Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate, Udupi District, alleging illegality which came to be rejected.

The petitioner argued that the vehicles of the petitioners have gross vehicle weight of less than 12000 Kgs. Therefore, those vehicles cannot be categorized as buses. They are minibuses. According to the concession agreement minibus is 50% less than a bus. Therefore, deduction in the toll plaza holding that there is a mismatch between registration of vehicles and the capacity or what is uploaded into the FASTag account, cannot be made.

Further, the requirement under the FASTag is that what is projected by the vehicle owners is to be deducted. The deductions under the National Highways Act are impermissible. He would thus seek a direction to stop the dual demands made.

The concessionaire from the NHAI referred to the registration details of a vehicle and contended that the vehicle is registered as a bus and seating capacity is shown as 38. The same owner uploads the documents on the FASTag. The owner of the vehicle describes it as a minibus and reduces the seating capacity to 32. When the vehicle passes through the toll plaza, the FASTag immediately deducts what is found in the FASTag document. Later, when it is noticed that there is a mismatch, further deduction is made. He would submit that there can be no qualm about the deductions made.

Findings:

The bench referred to the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, National Highways Act, 1956, the Rules framed thereunder, the National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008.

It stated that there is a mismatch in regards to the details of the vehicle as uploaded by the owner, and the details of the vehicle are drawn by the system from the Transport Department. If it is a minibus, it would become a light motor vehicle and the fee that would be charged is Rs.1.05 per km and if it is a bus, the fee would be Rs.2.20 per km.

Referring to the Manual issued for operating the toll booths the court said “Under Clause 17, which deals with dispute handling, the concessionaire is empowered to credit adjust, debit adjust and charge back. The debit adjustment can be for several reasons. One of the reasons is vehicle class mismatch. Same goes with the charge back.”

Emphasising that “The concessionaire is entitled to do a debit adjustment in case of a vehicle mismatch. In the case at hand, the vehicle mismatch has arisen on the variation with the registration certificate issued by the Regional Transport Authority which is found in the records of the Department and what is uploaded on to the FASHag.”

The court said “Fee collection is not dealt with under the Act. It is dealt with under the aforesaid Rules framed under the Highways Act. Schedule-R therein to the Rules is the same, which is found in the Manual / concession agreement.”

Following which it held “If the submission of the learned senior counsel is to be accepted, it would lead to huge losses to any person for the reason that the Association is wanting to take advantage of the vacuum under the Act. Notwithstanding the registration of the vehicles as buses, the vehicle owners describe their vehicles as minibuses. Therefore, we have to fall back upon the Highways Act and the Rules, and the agreement between NHAI and the concessionaire. The dispute mismatch is noticed and therefore, the fee in terms of registration certificate is collected.”

It added “The debit adjustment or the charge back mechanism has been rightly invoked in view of the discrepancies between registration data and the uploaded FASTag information.”

Rejecting the petition it said “The legal foundation for toll adjustments due to vehicle mismatch is both statutory and contractual, making the petitioners' grievance legally untenable. Thus, finding the petition devoid of merit, it would necessarily meet its dismissal.”

Appearance: Senior Advocate Puttige R Ramesh a/w Advocate A S Parasara Kumar for Petitioners.

CGC Aditya Singh FOR R1.

Advocate Shilpa Shah FOR R2.

Senior Advocate C.K.Nandakumar for Advocate Raghuram Cadambi for R3.

HCGP Shamanth Naik FOR R4.

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 200.

Case Title: Karavali Bus Owners Association & Others AND Union of India & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.9159 OF 2025

Click Here To Read Order