The Madras High Court has set aside an order passed by T.N. Transport Commissioner on February 16 this year refusing to register a car with automatic transmission under the ‘Divyangjan’ (physically challenged) category and consequently provide tax exemption to the owner.
Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy held that the Transport Commissioner ought not to have rejected the request made by A. Kumaresan, a person with a physical disability, reportedly capable of driving a car with an automatic transmission, without proper consideration of the latest guidelines.
The judge said, a State Government Order (G.O.) issued on December 26, 1976 had restricted the benefit of tax exemption only to motor vehicles specially designed or adapted for the use of persons with disabilities because at that point, automatic transmission vehicles were not available in India.
Now that such vehicles had become common, the Union Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH) had, on November 13, 2020, written to the Transport Secretaries as well as Commissioners of all States and Union Territories to register vehicles with automatic gears too, under the ‘Divyangjan’ category.
“The vehicles with automatic gear have been considered suitable for driving by some of the Divyangjan without altering the vehicle. To facilitate the Divyangjan, the various exemptions, facilitations and relief provided by State governments in respect of invalid carriage vehicles may also be extended for these vehicles owned by the Divyangjan,” the MoRTH letter read.
After extracting the contents of the letter in his order, the judge said: “From the above, it is evident that MoRTH had concluded that vehicles with automatic transmission are suitable for driving by some disabled persons without altering the vehicle. This aspect was not noticed while issuing the impugned (under challenge) order dated February 16, 2024.”
Agreeing with the petitioner’s counsel S. Elango that the issue requires reconsideration, the judge set aside the Transport Commissioner’s rejection order and directed the officer to reconsider the issue in the light of the 1976 G.O. as well as the 2020 letter from MoRTH and take a fresh decision within four weeks.
