[ksameer1234]

Originally Posted by Mu009

How is this enforcing the law?

Section 192 A says - "...No owner of a motor vehicle shall use or permit the use of the vehicle as a transport vehicle..."

where, a transport vehicle is - "...a public service vehicle..."
and, a public service vehicle is - "... any motor vehicle used or adapted to be used for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward..."

So, if the competent authorities feel that the section is being violated, they can issue a challan.

The Facebook post described what is first extortion and harassment by RTO officials, and then complete inflexibility from the judge in the face of an obvious instance of bullying an ignorant man into pleading guilty.

RTO officials did their job, though their unwillingness to listen is sad. As for second part, signing a document without reading first and then finding out it is about pleading guilty does not give any reason for the judge to dismiss that document.

It is like the case described in the OP, but please do not use the adjectives reasonable or enforcing in the same sentence.

The law is clearly written and RTO officials decided to enforce it. They performed their duty alright, whether or not it was sensible.

Even in the present case, why is retroactive action being taken once the issue is publicised? If that is possible, why could that not be done at the judge's level in the first place? That would discourage such harassment by police "officers".

While I am guessing here, judge could have dismissed the challan if presented with satisfactory evidence.

Every time it's the same story - until you make a noise, people will take advantage of you and harass you as much as possible.

Totally agree with you. In today's day and age, any uninformed or even slightly less informed person will be harassed and conned. I myself have been a victim several times. The only way one can save himself from harassment is by being informed or at least being aware.

[Mu009]

Originally Posted by ksameer1234

Section 192 A says - "...No owner of a motor vehicle shall use or permit the use of the vehicle as a transport vehicle..."

where, a transport vehicle is - "...a public service vehicle..."
and, a public service vehicle is - "... any motor vehicle used or adapted to be used for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward..."

So, if the competent authorities feel that the section is being violated, they can issue a challan.

Feel? Law isn't about what one feels.
And, the motor vehicle in question wasn't used for "hire or reward", unless you interpret "reward" as the feeling you get from doing a fellow human being a good turn.
And there was clearly no transaction in front of the "undercover" official.
So, I beg to differ sir.

RTO officials did their job, though their unwillingness to listen is sad.

Again, I would argue that doing their job does not constitute blindly listening to the lying undercover official- if no money changed hands, he didn't do his job, but harassed a citizen.
While I agree that's sad, but I wouldn't look at it as him doing his job.

As for second part, signing a document without reading first and then finding out it is about pleading guilty does not give any reason for the judge to dismiss that document.

You are absolutely correct here.
But let me elaborate upon what I meant to say:
All these officials positions are funded by this man's (and our) taxes. The system is there to help him, not harass him. The system should, in theory, reward a good samaritan, not extort him for a mistake he made under duress.
You may call me naive and foolishly idealistic (perhaps foolish is a redundant adjective there) - but even though you are absolutely correct, I do not agree.

Because, if a retroactive transfer and inquiry was ordered in the present case (even though in the OP the guy "admitted his mistake"), I don't see why the judge cannot dismiss the document if he so wishes.
Again, the law may say that he cannot/may not - that's not my point.

But if we have to argue about the role of "public" "servants" and "judicial" "officials" in such a way, I believe that's a good enough indicator of the situation by itself.

The law is clearly written and RTO officials decided to enforce it. They performed their duty alright, whether or not it was sensible.

Again, if no money changed hands, it was extortion and harassment, not duty.

[ksameer1234]

Originally Posted by Mu009

Feel? Law isn't about what one feels.
And, the motor vehicle in question wasn't used for "hire or reward", unless you interpret "reward" as the feeling you get from doing a fellow human being a good turn.
And there was clearly no transaction in front of the "undercover" official.

Yes, there was no reward nor the purpose was hire. This is why the issued challan should have been contested and canceled. Similar to how many bhpians have been able to get e-challans canceled by presenting evidence.

The system is there to help him, not harass him. The system should, in theory, reward a good samaritan, not extort him for a mistake he made under duress.

But sad reality is that this doesn't always happen. Can't help much but come to terms with realities of life.

Again, if no money changed hands, it was extortion and harassment, not duty.

Yes, and by pleading not-guilty, the onus would be on police / RTO to prove that money was indeed exchanged leading to a case of reward.

[rvd8732]

I guess, someone from Vijaya Karnataka (Kannada newspaper) read this post. Bangalore Traffic Police confirmed that they will support giving lift as it will reduce traffic. They also say, although it's illegal for white board cars to transport people by taking money. However, on friendly note white board cars can drop people; you will not be fined.



PS: This is literal translation from Kannada. Please pardon.

[bravo_romeo]

As said by many, the Sec 66/192 prohibits usage of a personal car as a commercial vehicle, This law was introduced and still applied on highways and rural roads parts of India where many local operators register their vehicle as non-commercial yet use it for ferrying goods and passengers. They often take these vehicles out of state where police have a unique way to identify them and take legal action accordingly.

Firstly they look for specific vehicles with whiteboard registration such as Force Trax, Tata Sumo, 3 wheeler rickshaws, LCVs like TATA ACE, Mahindra Maxximo, Bolero camper. It also applies to Brand new vehicles which are on their way to the dealer yet drivers pick passengers for short distances.

Trucks have the permission of carrying only 3 people in the cabin on highways and 5-8 (Labours for unloading goods ) in the city.

As suggested by one member to exchange phone numbers, become facebook friends etc, Practically I will drive alone rather doing all that. Even if any driver claims to know all passengers, They take him aside and start interrogating the passengers about drivers detail. This is also done to sedan car drivers where the vehicle is registered on drivers name and passengers are not related to driver.

The main motive behind this law is to prohibit unauthorized used of private vehicles commercially and minimise evasion of tax.

Recently one person asked Additional Commissioner of Traffic, Bengaluru about the implementation of this rule in the city where R Hithendra, Additional Commissioner of Traffic clearly said “We don’t want to fine anyone who gives a lift to someone in need or shares a vehicle. I do not think this could be a commercial activity. In fact, we want to support carpooling in Bengaluru, The city is already very congested. If everyone drives to work, it will only get worse. Carpooling helps reduce the number of cars on the road; instead of four people driving four cars to the same place, they can travel in one car. There is nothing wrong with it unless the person giving a lift to a stranger is charging money for it”.

It means it will not be imposed only in city limits, in Highways still you can get fined if caught.

[BUXX]

This case got published in the TOI Delhi edition today !

I think even in some states in the US, hitchhiking is illegal .

[john.gt]

If getting rewarded for sharing a ride with unknown person is considered illegal, then doesn't quick ride and bla-bla car fall in the same category?
In both cases the driver gets paid for taking people in his route.

[ariesonu]

Originally Posted by centaur

An update -
The cop has been transferred and an enquiry ordered. Full article here
There is also a suggestion from many lawyers to get these laws removed/revamped

More than the COP, I believe the 'learned' JUDGE needs to be taken to task. Most of them think that they are the law & in fact above the LAW.

It is HE who has made a common man GUILTY in the books of LAW & this will now reflect in Mr Nair's legal history. One goes to court to be heard & reasoned by the JUDICIARY.

Though India is desperately short of JUDGES (Point even made in a Bollywood movie) but we do not need such LAWMEN.

Regards-Sonu

[ShreyasM8]

I had read this in some unknown facts and brushed it off thinking it's another cooked up story! My car my wish, that was my thought. Surprised to know it's not the case.

However looking at the details, I feel that particular section of the law is twisted, it only says you can't use the personal car to carry passengers which implies you can't accept money if you give lift to someone.
Both police and the judge should have had applied some common sense.

[binand]

Originally Posted by ariesonu

More than the COP, I believe the 'learned' JUDGE needs to be taken to task.[...]

It is HE who has made a common man GUILTY in the books of LAW & this will now reflect in Mr Nair's legal history.

Can we get this point sorted out? In his own words, Mr. Nair pleaded guilty. The judge did not make him guilty.

The judge has a role to play only if you don't plead guilty. Then they will conduct the trial, allow both sides to present evidence and witnesses, permit cross examination etc.

If you plead guilty, the only option in front of the judge is to punish you as per the provisions of the statutes.

[DRC]

Don't be surprised.
This law exist in many countries.
In some countries like US, it is to prevent insurance liability
In countries like India, it is to protect Monopoly if the state run transport companies. Say BMTC in Bangalore.

[ajayclicks]

Originally Posted by murthy_p

Bengaluru will never do what Mumbai did.

"We don’t want to fine anyone who gives a lift to someone in need or shares a vehicle. I do not think this could be a commercial activity [here]. In fact, we want to support carpooling in Bengaluru,” said R Hithendra, Additional Commissioner of Traffic.

"The city is already very congested. If everyone drives to work, it will only get worse. Carpooling helps reduce the number of cars on the road; instead of four people driving four cars to the same place, they can travel in one car. There is nothing wrong with it unless the person giving a lift to a stranger is charging money for it,” he said.

https://bangaloremirror.indiatimes.c...w/64739138.cms

I offer rides through Quickride in Bangalore. A regular ride taker was mentioning that he read in a local paper, that RTO is planning to warn/crackdown on folks who offer rides on Quickride. Apparently BMTC is running into losses due to carpooling

[blackasta]

Government has to decide what it wants and clear their own stand.
On one hand they cannot say 'go green', plant a few trees, take metro for 10 mins for photo ops, and on the other hand crack a whip on carpooling & ridesharing for commuters.
Enough of running with the rabbit & hunting with the hounds.

[binand]

Originally Posted by blackasta

Government has to decide what it wants and clear their own stand.

The much-maligned vapourware that is MV Amendment Act, 2016 has this new section:



Seems to cover a lot of ground, there. Number (viii) probably covers the scenario under discussion.

[blackasta]

Originally Posted by binand

The much-maligned vapourware that is MV Amendment Act, 2016 has this new section:

Attachment 1785588

Seems to cover a lot of ground, there. Number (viii) probably covers the scenario under discussion.

This is like a expression of intent - 'I plan to do so and so things, and this is the super high level stuff that I plan to do'.
Nothing is concrete, and the way these 'intents' shall be codified as laws shall also be left wide open for interpretation by respective enforcement agencies and misused.