Ability Forum

[JAGDISHNM]

Hi Friends,
I request for your views on above issue, which is affecting Disabled riders in Maharashtra State.
The matter is pending for decision by Central Govt. & I am pasting below my last letter to authorites. Any simmillarly affected person/s may pl. send details for probing possibility of any joint action.

JAGDISH N. MOTWANI
1/34, Darshan CHS.
SHIVDHAM Complex, Dindoshi, Mumbai-400097.
Email- jmotwani@vsnl.net /
Tel. 28497204./9869450565.
11th May, 2007.


Shri Saroj Kumar Dash, Joint Secretary ,
Anand Prakash, Director (Road Transport),
MINISTRY OF SHIPPING, ROAD TRANSPORT & HIGHWAYS
DEPARTMENT OF ROAD TRANSPORT & HIGHWAYS
Privahan Bhavan, 1, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001

Respected Sirs ,

Sub.- Second Appeal application under RTI Act
A/C- Issue of Ban on Registration of Invalid Carriages in Maharashtra.

At the outset this acknowledges with thanks for your Order dated 13/4/07 under Ref. D.O. No. RT-11016/S/2007-MVL, whereby yourgoodself has informed me on the long pending Disability Rehabilitation issue. I put on record the appreciation for positive approach of yourgoodself & also regret my inability for personal meeting with yourself at New Delhi due to my mobility / transportation limitations.

I have full trust that your Dept. keeping the objective of Welfare State will immediately & amicably resolve this problem created by Maharashtra Transport Commissioner. Sir, for details on provisions of Motor Vehicle legislation permitting for registration of involved vehicles as Invalid Carriage under existing law are exhaustively given in enclosed point wise note & will take few minutes of your valuable time for appreciating & accepting its contents. Taking cognizance of the enclosure I am sure Govt. of India will suitably advise Maharashtra Transport Commissioner for following practice as prevalent in other States / Union- Territories & also as was being done in Maharashtra prior to 2003 & without resorting to any legislative changes, notification, etc.

Sir, as regards RTI Act appeal, I HAVE STILL NOT BEEN INFORMED / PROVIDED RECORDS of action taken &/ or proposed to be taken for your confirmation in point 4 ( i.e. “__ The request made by TC- MS vide letter dt. 16/1/06 IS UNDER CONSIDERATION IN THIS DEPT. __” ). Yourgoodself will appreciate that it will almost 1 ½ year since the matter is referred to Govt. of India by MS-TC.

Sir, as regards Para (a); (b) & (c) of your Order, you may kindly direct the concern PIO about informing for the following ;
( a ) Definition of Invalid Carriage vis-à-vis cited examples in point No. 6 of enclosed note & also provisions of THE BOMBAY MOTOR VEHICLES TAX ACT,1958.
( b ) If provisions of Amendment to Sec. 52 not being applied in isolation to vehicles of Disabled then, then why registration of Trucks, Tankers, Buses, etc. is not similarly banned as even for them only Engine, Cowl & Chassis is supplied by Manufactures ( like Telco, Ashok-Leyland, etc.) & Load / Passenger Body, Tank, etc. is fabricated subsequently by local fabricators who are not asked for Prototype approval. [ Details narrated in Point 5 of Enclosure]
( c ) Whether the side- car/wheels fall under definition of SEMI TRAILOR U/S 2(39) & thus enjoying exemption from Rule 126. Also, what cognizance is taken of specific confirmations given by A.R.A.I. , V.R.D.E. & C.I.R.T. for non applicability of prototype approval in involved matter ( copies of their letters already provided to you). . [ Details narrated in Point 2 of Enclosure]

Thanking you in anticipation of yourgoodself ‘s favourable & early response.
Yours,




( Jagdish N. Motwani)
Enclosed- As above.


NOTE ON PROVISIONS OF MOTOR VEHICLE LEGISLATION PERMITTING FOR REGISTRATION OF INVOLVED VEHICLES AS INVALID CARRIAGE UNDER EXISTING LAW

Everyone concerned is aware about the scooter with sidecar or side-wheels being the most popular & economic means of transportation of disabled, who can neither use public transport nor afford car, taxi. etc. Maintenance of such 3/4 wheel standard scooters ( Honda / kinetic / bajaj ) is easy & economical due to vast availability of mechanics & spares for these models and also importantly, running cost is affordable as these scooters give mileage of app. 30 kms. per liter of petrol.

Point 1
Maharashtra Transport Commissioner has put a Ban on Registration of such Invalid Carriages from 2003, although other States & Union Territories have not imposed any such ban.

Point 2
Rule 126 stipulates for testing prototype of M.V. & not attachment / retro-fitment like sidecar, this also needs to be analyzed keep in mind the definition of Motor-Cycle under Sec.2(27). Let us remember that prototype of motor vehicle i.e. scooter has already been approved by notified agencies. The exemption granted for Trailer / Semi- Trailer in this Section reconfirms the stand for sidecar / Invalid Carriage. In this connection we may also refer to definition of SEMI TRAILER under Section 2(39) i.e. semi-trailer means a vehicle not mechanically propelled ( other than a trailer), which is intended to be connected to a motor vehicle & which is so constructed that the portion of it is super imposed on, & a part of whose weight is borne by, that motor vehicle. The side-car / wheels are Semi-Trailers as defined & exempted from prototype testing. Further, it may also be noted that this definition does not exclude sidecar in any manner.

ARAI, Pune, & VRDE, Ahmednagar & CIRT, Pune - 3 Govt. approved testing agencies under M.V. Act (as stated in Section 126), have confirmed that Invalid Carriages in the form of sidecar scooter does not require prototype testing , etc & documentary evidence i.e. their respective specific confirmatory letters dated 16/11/06 , 20/2/07 & 13/3/07 in this regard is already made available. ARAI’s , VRDE’s & CIRT’s confirmation states about sidecar being retro-fitment on existing vehicles & hence falls under the power of local RTA / RTO for registration based on disability of rider. The fourth agency CFMT&TI, Budni, through its letter dated 9/3/07; has advised that they are dealing only with agricultural tractors & ARAI, being the appropriate agency. Sir, isn’t it surprising that authority / institute whose Prototype Testing Certificate is being insisted by T.C., has explained its’ stand for there being no such approval required, notified, etc., how still this requirement is being illegally insisted upon.

Further, number of such Invalid Carriages sold locally may not exceed the exempted limits ( i.e. 250 in 6 months) under Rule 126 A in anyway.

Point 3
Central Govt.’s Notification S0 1248 (E) Dt. 5/11/04 { Suppressing earlier Notification S0 451 (E) Dt. 19.6.1992 } , passed after 2002 amendment under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for registration of Invalid Carriage and Sidecar Two wheeler for personal use as “Non Transport Vehicles”. And not just this, it is also providing Sidecar Two Wheeler for goods carriage as Transport vehicles as well. This subsequent Central Govt. notification makes such ban by T.C. contrary to the provisions of this notification & hence illegal.

Point 4
Cognizance needs to be taken of Rule 166(1) of Maharashtra M.V.Rules which specifically provides for Attachment of Sidecar & its dimensions, specifications, etc. ( MAHARASHTRA MOTOR VEHICLES RULES,1989Rule 166 - Attachment to motor cycle- (1) Every sidecar attached to a motor cycle shall be so attached, at left hand side of the motor cycle that the wheel thereof is not outside perpendicular planes at right angles to the longitudinal axis of the motor cycle passing through the extreme projecting points in front and in the rear of the motor cycle.). This rule is as per the powers of State Govt. under Sec. 111 of Central M.V. Act 1988. Similar Rule exists in other States like Rule 324 of A.P.-M.V. Rules.

Point 4
No details are available with Dept. / Govt. about Registration ,Accidents, Traffic Offences & Vehicle Failure of such vehicle. This is confirmed by TC Office through letter dated 21/11/06 & same is already on record. Even IRDA’s Motor Insurance Tariff treats Invalid Carriage on par with Sidecar 2wheeler & allowed 25% premium discount for both, due to its good safety records / features.

Point 5
Even after amendment involved to Sec.52, how TELCO & ASOK-LEYLAND ‘s manufactured Chassis & Engine are registered as Trucks & Buses, etc. when Cabin / Load-Body / Passenger-Body is Fabricated / built / fixed by local workshops? How. T.C. / RTO approves of all other alterations / modifications like done by DC-Design Studio ( Dilip Chabria), CNG / LPG kit fittings, Bus & Truck body building with chassis extension, Film Production related Vans, Dhoom Film type Bikes, Yo-bikes, several Celebrities’ Vehicles, etc. , but this arbitrary rule is being applied only for disabled riders. For equity & justice then no Truck, Tanker, Bus, Dumper, etc. built on Chassis manufactured by TELCO, A/Leyland, Volvo, etc. should be Registered after 2002 Amendment to Sec. 52, as such body builders / fabricators don’t undertake prototype testing as being insisted in our case. It only proves might is right as T.C. has no guts to take on with powerful Transport lobby & then face wrath of masses, political & departmental bosses, etc., but disabled class which is not powerful is allowed to suffer in silence. Sir, isn’t it a shame in progressive democratic country this atrocity is being not challenged.

The Amendment to Sec. 52, w.e.f. 20/8/2002 ( Act 27 of 2000 & perhaps as fall out of case by car manufacturer Premier for Petrol – Diesel engine conversion) predominantly was for Transport Vehicles & for alternate fuel usage & its safety aspects & does not repeal / alter any other provisions for Invalid Carriages &/ or sidecar scooters which are Non-Transport Class of Vehicles. Even the official Website of Govt. of India’s Ministry http://nicsidemotemp3.nic.in/index2.asp?langid=2&sublinkid=204 confirms “Alterations made in transport vehicle without prior approval of the Registering Authority were barred.” Further Alteration as defined for this Section is “ Alteration means a change in the basic structure of a vehicle which results in change in its basic feature”. Hence, attachment of Retro fitment i.e. sidecar or side-wheels do not fall in this preview as basic feature of scooter is not changed. Also copies of advises dt. 26.9.2006 of Kinetic Motors and & dt.17.11.2006 of Honda2Wheelers – confirming non supply of company fitted sidecar scooters & also requesting to approach local dealer for sidecar fitting are also presented to T.C. & RTO.

Point 6
Govt. of Maharashtra through their letter dated 6/3/07 & T.C. through it’s letter dated 13/3/07, to you are now playing / misinterpreting the Definition of Invalid Carriage as defined under Sec. 2(18) , from this the words “ AND NOT MERELY ADOPTED “ are being read as mutually exclusive instead of mutually inclusive. Just to illustrate for wrong interpretation of English language of the act by State Govt., I am reproducing few other relevant definitions under Sec. 2 of the M.V. Act,
· U/S 2(27) "motor cycle" means a two-wheeled motor vehicle, inclusive of any detachable side-car having an extra wheel, attached to the motor vehicle;
· U/S 2(28) "motor vehicle" or "vehicle" means any mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads whether the power of
· U/S 2(26) "motor car" means any motor vehicle other than a transport vehicle, omnibus, road-roller, tractor, motor cycle or invalid carriage;
Sir, the definition of Invalid Carriage U/S 2(18) has remained unaltered in Central Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as well as earlier Central Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 U/S 2(10), in this context then how till 2003 such vehicles were being registered. Further;
· I have come across registration details of vehicle no. MH-02/NA-2665 which though is standard Toyota Corolla car, but is registered as invalid carriage on 8/9/03 by same involved RTO. this shows discrimination.
· Reportedly, in 2001 Kinetic Motors sold about 30 kinetic y2k model scooters to one disabled organization called Viklang Vikas Mandal, Vile-Parle, Mumbai at subsidized rates. these scooters after attaching sidecar or sidewheels were registered as invalid carriage by Mumbai RTO's for benefit of disabled.
· Reportedly, about 2 years back Defense Ministry invited offers of local fabricators for attaching side wheels to standard available scooters, which were to be given to defense personnel disabled on duty. a fabricator / modifier from Delhi was short listed for charges around rs. 6000/- per invalid carriage by central govt.
· I have come across registration details of I.C., which is Activa Scooter with Sidecar duly & correctly registered by Vadodra (GJ-06) RTO on 9/6/06.
For Invalid Carriage, the current interpretation by T.C. is contrary to definition under THE BOMBAY MOTOR VEHICLES TAX ACT,1958,Section 3(1) (1A)(xii) i.e. “All motor vehicles specially adopted for the use of persons suffering from a physical defect or disability, where such vehicles are owned or are used solely, by persons suffering from such a defect or disability.”

Point 7
As no 2/3 Wheeler Manufacturer is selling such vehicles i.e. Invalid Carriages or company fitted sidecar / side-wheels scooters & withdrawal of such vital means of rehabilitation of Disabled, also involves violation of provisions of P.W.D. Act,1995.

Point 8
As per documents available , T.C. upon reference of M.L.A. Mr. Nitin Raut of Nagpur & realizing the fact that no intimation to; or permission of State & / or Central Ministry being taken by T.C. on this sensitive issue, the T.C. office to circumvent the problem unnecessarily referred the matter to Govt. of India, through letter dated 16/1/06. Even this not required letter was send after almost 3 years after ban & there after no follow up was done & most importantly this letter to Central Govt. did not give any details or reasons of imposing ban from 2003 in Maharashtra. Now upon persistant follow ups the T.C. & State Transport Dept. is again confusing & circumventing the issue to shield their wrong implementation of Sec. 52 for this matter. Without prejudice to all other issues the concerned officials need to be questioned for this delay in reference & subsequent non follow-up action. Further, when Central M.V. Act & MS MV Rules ( which are passed by Parliament & Legislature ) specially provide for registration of Invalid Carriages, then how without Legislative Sanction / Ordinance , RTO / T.C.’s office has stopped such registration suo motu.

Sir, considering the above no Amendment to M.V. Act & Rules or Notification there under is warranted for such rectification & as existing provisions are sufficient. Hence you may kindly advise Maharashtra -Govt. & / or Transport Commissioner to follow practice as prevalent prior to 2002 & as in other States & U.T.s’. We feel that for such communication as no further references, approvals, etc. are required which otherwise will involve considerable delay. etc,
Trust that the above independent analysis with relevant legal provisions as cited above will enable yourgoodself to suitably advise Govt. of Maharashtra &/ or Transport Commissioner about immediate rectification of their wrong decision.
Thanking you in anticipation of yourgoodself ‘s favourable & early action & response.

Hi Friends,
I request for your views on above issue, which is affecting Disabled riders in Maharashtra State.
The matter is pending for decision by Central Govt. & I am pasting below my last letter to authorites. Any simmillarly affected person/s may pl. send details for probing possibility of any joint action.

JAGDISH N. MOTWANI
1/34, Darshan CHS.
SHIVDHAM Complex, Dindoshi, Mumbai-400097.
Email- jmotwani@vsnl.net /
Tel. 28497204./9869450565.
11th May, 2007.


Shri Saroj Kumar Dash, Joint Secretary ,
Anand Prakash, Director (Road Transport),
MINISTRY OF SHIPPING, ROAD TRANSPORT & HIGHWAYS
DEPARTMENT OF ROAD TRANSPORT & HIGHWAYS
Privahan Bhavan, 1, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001

Respected Sirs ,

Sub.- Second Appeal application under RTI Act
A/C- Issue of Ban on Registration of Invalid Carriages in Maharashtra.

At the outset this acknowledges with thanks for your Order dated 13/4/07 under Ref. D.O. No. RT-11016/S/2007-MVL, whereby yourgoodself has informed me on the long pending Disability Rehabilitation issue. I put on record the appreciation for positive approach of yourgoodself & also regret my inability for personal meeting with yourself at New Delhi due to my mobility / transportation limitations.

I have full trust that your Dept. keeping the objective of Welfare State will immediately & amicably resolve this problem created by Maharashtra Transport Commissioner. Sir, for details on provisions of Motor Vehicle legislation permitting for registration of involved vehicles as Invalid Carriage under existing law are exhaustively given in enclosed point wise note & will take few minutes of your valuable time for appreciating & accepting its contents. Taking cognizance of the enclosure I am sure Govt. of India will suitably advise Maharashtra Transport Commissioner for following practice as prevalent in other States / Union- Territories & also as was being done in Maharashtra prior to 2003 & without resorting to any legislative changes, notification, etc.

Sir, as regards RTI Act appeal, I HAVE STILL NOT BEEN INFORMED / PROVIDED RECORDS of action taken &/ or proposed to be taken for your confirmation in point 4 ( i.e. “__ The request made by TC- MS vide letter dt. 16/1/06 IS UNDER CONSIDERATION IN THIS DEPT. __” ). Yourgoodself will appreciate that it will almost 1 ½ year since the matter is referred to Govt. of India by MS-TC.

Sir, as regards Para (a); (b) & (c) of your Order, you may kindly direct the concern PIO about informing for the following ;
( a ) Definition of Invalid Carriage vis-à-vis cited examples in point No. 6 of enclosed note & also provisions of THE BOMBAY MOTOR VEHICLES TAX ACT,1958.
( b ) If provisions of Amendment to Sec. 52 not being applied in isolation to vehicles of Disabled then, then why registration of Trucks, Tankers, Buses, etc. is not similarly banned as even for them only Engine, Cowl & Chassis is supplied by Manufactures ( like Telco, Ashok-Leyland, etc.) & Load / Passenger Body, Tank, etc. is fabricated subsequently by local fabricators who are not asked for Prototype approval. [ Details narrated in Point 5 of Enclosure]
( c ) Whether the side- car/wheels fall under definition of SEMI TRAILOR U/S 2(39) & thus enjoying exemption from Rule 126. Also, what cognizance is taken of specific confirmations given by A.R.A.I. , V.R.D.E. & C.I.R.T. for non applicability of prototype approval in involved matter ( copies of their letters already provided to you). . [ Details narrated in Point 2 of Enclosure]

Thanking you in anticipation of yourgoodself ‘s favourable & early response.
Yours,




( Jagdish N. Motwani)
Enclosed- As above.


NOTE ON PROVISIONS OF MOTOR VEHICLE LEGISLATION PERMITTING FOR REGISTRATION OF INVOLVED VEHICLES AS INVALID CARRIAGE UNDER EXISTING LAW

Everyone concerned is aware about the scooter with sidecar or side-wheels being the most popular & economic means of transportation of disabled, who can neither use public transport nor afford car, taxi. etc. Maintenance of such 3/4 wheel standard scooters ( Honda / kinetic / bajaj ) is easy & economical due to vast availability of mechanics & spares for these models and also importantly, running cost is affordable as these scooters give mileage of app. 30 kms. per liter of petrol.

Point 1
Maharashtra Transport Commissioner has put a Ban on Registration of such Invalid Carriages from 2003, although other States & Union Territories have not imposed any such ban.

Point 2
Rule 126 stipulates for testing prototype of M.V. & not attachment / retro-fitment like sidecar, this also needs to be analyzed keep in mind the definition of Motor-Cycle under Sec.2(27). Let us remember that prototype of motor vehicle i.e. scooter has already been approved by notified agencies. The exemption granted for Trailer / Semi- Trailer in this Section reconfirms the stand for sidecar / Invalid Carriage. In this connection we may also refer to definition of SEMI TRAILER under Section 2(39) i.e. semi-trailer means a vehicle not mechanically propelled ( other than a trailer), which is intended to be connected to a motor vehicle & which is so constructed that the portion of it is super imposed on, & a part of whose weight is borne by, that motor vehicle. The side-car / wheels are Semi-Trailers as defined & exempted from prototype testing. Further, it may also be noted that this definition does not exclude sidecar in any manner.

ARAI, Pune, & VRDE, Ahmednagar & CIRT, Pune - 3 Govt. approved testing agencies under M.V. Act (as stated in Section 126), have confirmed that Invalid Carriages in the form of sidecar scooter does not require prototype testing , etc & documentary evidence i.e. their respective specific confirmatory letters dated 16/11/06 , 20/2/07 & 13/3/07 in this regard is already made available. ARAI’s , VRDE’s & CIRT’s confirmation states about sidecar being retro-fitment on existing vehicles & hence falls under the power of local RTA / RTO for registration based on disability of rider. The fourth agency CFMT&TI, Budni, through its letter dated 9/3/07; has advised that they are dealing only with agricultural tractors & ARAI, being the appropriate agency. Sir, isn’t it surprising that authority / institute whose Prototype Testing Certificate is being insisted by T.C., has explained its’ stand for there being no such approval required, notified, etc., how still this requirement is being illegally insisted upon.

Further, number of such Invalid Carriages sold locally may not exceed the exempted limits ( i.e. 250 in 6 months) under Rule 126 A in anyway.

Point 3
Central Govt.’s Notification S0 1248 (E) Dt. 5/11/04 { Suppressing earlier Notification S0 451 (E) Dt. 19.6.1992 } , passed after 2002 amendment under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for registration of Invalid Carriage and Sidecar Two wheeler for personal use as “Non Transport Vehicles”. And not just this, it is also providing Sidecar Two Wheeler for goods carriage as Transport vehicles as well. This subsequent Central Govt. notification makes such ban by T.C. contrary to the provisions of this notification & hence illegal.

Point 4
Cognizance needs to be taken of Rule 166(1) of Maharashtra M.V.Rules which specifically provides for Attachment of Sidecar & its dimensions, specifications, etc. ( MAHARASHTRA MOTOR VEHICLES RULES,1989Rule 166 - Attachment to motor cycle- (1) Every sidecar attached to a motor cycle shall be so attached, at left hand side of the motor cycle that the wheel thereof is not outside perpendicular planes at right angles to the longitudinal axis of the motor cycle passing through the extreme projecting points in front and in the rear of the motor cycle.). This rule is as per the powers of State Govt. under Sec. 111 of Central M.V. Act 1988. Similar Rule exists in other States like Rule 324 of A.P.-M.V. Rules.

Point 4
No details are available with Dept. / Govt. about Registration ,Accidents, Traffic Offences & Vehicle Failure of such vehicle. This is confirmed by TC Office through letter dated 21/11/06 & same is already on record. Even IRDA’s Motor Insurance Tariff treats Invalid Carriage on par with Sidecar 2wheeler & allowed 25% premium discount for both, due to its good safety records / features.

Point 5
Even after amendment involved to Sec.52, how TELCO & ASOK-LEYLAND ‘s manufactured Chassis & Engine are registered as Trucks & Buses, etc. when Cabin / Load-Body / Passenger-Body is Fabricated / built / fixed by local workshops? How. T.C. / RTO approves of all other alterations / modifications like done by DC-Design Studio ( Dilip Chabria), CNG / LPG kit fittings, Bus & Truck body building with chassis extension, Film Production related Vans, Dhoom Film type Bikes, Yo-bikes, several Celebrities’ Vehicles, etc. , but this arbitrary rule is being applied only for disabled riders. For equity & justice then no Truck, Tanker, Bus, Dumper, etc. built on Chassis manufactured by TELCO, A/Leyland, Volvo, etc. should be Registered after 2002 Amendment to Sec. 52, as such body builders / fabricators don’t undertake prototype testing as being insisted in our case. It only proves might is right as T.C. has no guts to take on with powerful Transport lobby & then face wrath of masses, political & departmental bosses, etc., but disabled class which is not powerful is allowed to suffer in silence. Sir, isn’t it a shame in progressive democratic country this atrocity is being not challenged.

The Amendment to Sec. 52, w.e.f. 20/8/2002 ( Act 27 of 2000 & perhaps as fall out of case by car manufacturer Premier for Petrol – Diesel engine conversion) predominantly was for Transport Vehicles & for alternate fuel usage & its safety aspects & does not repeal / alter any other provisions for Invalid Carriages &/ or sidecar scooters which are Non-Transport Class of Vehicles. Even the official Website of Govt. of India’s Ministry http://nicsidemotemp3.nic.in/index2.asp?langid=2&sublinkid=204 confirms “Alterations made in transport vehicle without prior approval of the Registering Authority were barred.” Further Alteration as defined for this Section is “ Alteration means a change in the basic structure of a vehicle which results in change in its basic feature”. Hence, attachment of Retro fitment i.e. sidecar or side-wheels do not fall in this preview as basic feature of scooter is not changed. Also copies of advises dt. 26.9.2006 of Kinetic Motors and & dt.17.11.2006 of Honda2Wheelers – confirming non supply of company fitted sidecar scooters & also requesting to approach local dealer for sidecar fitting are also presented to T.C. & RTO.

Point 6
Govt. of Maharashtra through their letter dated 6/3/07 & T.C. through it’s letter dated 13/3/07, to you are now playing / misinterpreting the Definition of Invalid Carriage as defined under Sec. 2(18) , from this the words “ AND NOT MERELY ADOPTED “ are being read as mutually exclusive instead of mutually inclusive. Just to illustrate for wrong interpretation of English language of the act by State Govt., I am reproducing few other relevant definitions under Sec. 2 of the M.V. Act,
· U/S 2(27) "motor cycle" means a two-wheeled motor vehicle, inclusive of any detachable side-car having an extra wheel, attached to the motor vehicle;
· U/S 2(28) "motor vehicle" or "vehicle" means any mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads whether the power of
· U/S 2(26) "motor car" means any motor vehicle other than a transport vehicle, omnibus, road-roller, tractor, motor cycle or invalid carriage;
Sir, the definition of Invalid Carriage U/S 2(18) has remained unaltered in Central Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as well as earlier Central Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 U/S 2(10), in this context then how till 2003 such vehicles were being registered. Further;
· I have come across registration details of vehicle no. MH-02/NA-2665 which though is standard Toyota Corolla car, but is registered as invalid carriage on 8/9/03 by same involved RTO. this shows discrimination.
· Reportedly, in 2001 Kinetic Motors sold about 30 kinetic y2k model scooters to one disabled organization called Viklang Vikas Mandal, Vile-Parle, Mumbai at subsidized rates. these scooters after attaching sidecar or sidewheels were registered as invalid carriage by Mumbai RTO's for benefit of disabled.
· Reportedly, about 2 years back Defense Ministry invited offers of local fabricators for attaching side wheels to standard available scooters, which were to be given to defense personnel disabled on duty. a fabricator / modifier from Delhi was short listed for charges around rs. 6000/- per invalid carriage by central govt.
· I have come across registration details of I.C., which is Activa Scooter with Sidecar duly & correctly registered by Vadodra (GJ-06) RTO on 9/6/06.
For Invalid Carriage, the current interpretation by T.C. is contrary to definition under THE BOMBAY MOTOR VEHICLES TAX ACT,1958,Section 3(1) (1A)(xii) i.e. “All motor vehicles specially adopted for the use of persons suffering from a physical defect or disability, where such vehicles are owned or are used solely, by persons suffering from such a defect or disability.”

Point 7
As no 2/3 Wheeler Manufacturer is selling such vehicles i.e. Invalid Carriages or company fitted sidecar / side-wheels scooters & withdrawal of such vital means of rehabilitation of Disabled, also involves violation of provisions of P.W.D. Act,1995.

Point 8
As per documents available , T.C. upon reference of M.L.A. Mr. Nitin Raut of Nagpur & realizing the fact that no intimation to; or permission of State & / or Central Ministry being taken by T.C. on this sensitive issue, the T.C. office to circumvent the problem unnecessarily referred the matter to Govt. of India, through letter dated 16/1/06. Even this not required letter was send after almost 3 years after ban & there after no follow up was done & most importantly this letter to Central Govt. did not give any details or reasons of imposing ban from 2003 in Maharashtra. Now upon persistant follow ups the T.C. & State Transport Dept. is again confusing & circumventing the issue to shield their wrong implementation of Sec. 52 for this matter. Without prejudice to all other issues the concerned officials need to be questioned for this delay in reference & subsequent non follow-up action. Further, when Central M.V. Act & MS MV Rules ( which are passed by Parliament & Legislature ) specially provide for registration of Invalid Carriages, then how without Legislative Sanction / Ordinance , RTO / T.C.’s office has stopped such registration suo motu.

Sir, considering the above no Amendment to M.V. Act & Rules or Notification there under is warranted for such rectification & as existing provisions are sufficient. Hence you may kindly advise Maharashtra -Govt. & / or Transport Commissioner to follow practice as prevalent prior to 2002 & as in other States & U.T.s’. We feel that for such communication as no further references, approvals, etc. are required which otherwise will involve considerable delay. etc,
Trust that the above independent analysis with relevant legal provisions as cited above will enable yourgoodself to suitably advise Govt. of Maharashtra &/ or Transport Commissioner about immediate rectification of their wrong decision.
Thanking you in anticipation of yourgoodself ‘s favourable & early action & response.

[Adverts]

[Shivani]

Dear Jagdish,

I read your post in detail and am impressed by how well you have researched and compiled the case. You have actually looked at it from all aspects.

I feel the defination of a Invalid Carriage is extremely important. Any or all vehicles driven by a disabled person may not be considered to be invalid carriage

A scooter with a side car may fit in the catagory of a simi trailer as illustrated in your post

"In this connection we may also refer to definition of SEMI TRAILER under Section 2(39) i.e. semi-trailer means a vehicle not mechanically propelled ( other than a trailer), which is intended to be connected to a motor vehicle & which is so constructed that the portion of it is super imposed on, & a part of whose weight is borne by, that motor vehicle. The side-car / wheels are Semi-Trailers as defined & exempted from prototype testing. Further, it may also be noted that this definition does not exclude sidecar in any manner. "


But on the other hand a car that is hand operated may surely be considered to be a invalid carriage, as here the entire functioning of the car is in a way altered. It may be considered that the companies/local vendours manufacturing this kit have some form of type testing and prototyping, just to make sure they are of adequate quality and they do not put a disabled person in any undue danger because of their poor quality.
If this quality testing is something that the Government requires before registration then they must have clear information of where the manufacturer/vendour can apply to get their product prototyped.
I am not sure how the other may feel about this and look forward to some discussions on this.
Regards,
Shivani

Dear Jagdish,

I read your post in detail and am impressed by how well you have researched and compiled the case. You have actually looked at it from all aspects.

I feel the defination of a Invalid Carriage is extremely important. Any or all vehicles driven by a disabled person may not be considered to be invalid carriage

A scooter with a side car may fit in the catagory of a simi trailer as illustrated in your post

"In this connection we may also refer to definition of SEMI TRAILER under Section 2(39) i.e. semi-trailer means a vehicle not mechanically propelled ( other than a trailer), which is intended to be connected to a motor vehicle & which is so constructed that the portion of it is super imposed on, & a part of whose weight is borne by, that motor vehicle. The side-car / wheels are Semi-Trailers as defined & exempted from prototype testing. Further, it may also be noted that this definition does not exclude sidecar in any manner. "


But on the other hand a car that is hand operated may surely be considered to be a invalid carriage, as here the entire functioning of the car is in a way altered. It may be considered that the companies/local vendours manufacturing this kit have some form of type testing and prototyping, just to make sure they are of adequate quality and they do not put a disabled person in any undue danger because of their poor quality.
If this quality testing is something that the Government requires before registration then they must have clear information of where the manufacturer/vendour can apply to get their product prototyped.
I am not sure how the other may feel about this and look forward to some discussions on this.
Regards,
Shivani

[Vic]

Mr. Motwani,

First of all, let me begin by saying that your letter to the Dept of Road Transport & Highways could not have been better written. It is a very comprehensive letter, with all relevant points well addressed.

My suggestions:

1. Follow up your RTI enquiry that is still unanswered with appropriate authorities. The RTI monitoring commission is quite strict about adherence to requisite time frames & in your case, having taken 1-1/2 years is an obvious indication of the dept of transport having breached the RTI guidelines.

2. You should file a case with the CCD. This is very simple to do and you do not need to be present in Delhi to do this as this can be done simply by writing to them. CCD can hold an independent enquiry into this matter.

I fully agree with yourself & Shivani that prototype testing for sidecars is clearly not required. Most countries only require a 'Type Approval' of the motor vehicle class & such minor adaptations for adapting the vehicle to personal disability need no further official testing.

Now digressing from the topic of sidecars
I do not agree with Shivani when she says that cars fitted with hand controls are altered tremedously as I think the alteration is minor and, in most cases, easily detachable - making the car easily usable by other non-disabled family members. Therefore, in my opinion it is not a good idea to class a hand operated car as an invalid carriage, unless ofcourse the car is only intended to be driven exclusively by a disabled driver. I do however agree that there should be some minimum standards and certification system for car adaptations (including hand controls) to ensure safety of users.

Vikas

_________________
Vikas

AccessAbility

Mr. Motwani,

First of all, let me begin by saying that your letter to the Dept of Road Transport & Highways could not have been better written. It is a very comprehensive letter, with all relevant points well addressed.

My suggestions:

1. Follow up your RTI enquiry that is still unanswered with appropriate authorities. The RTI monitoring commission is quite strict about adherence to requisite time frames & in your case, having taken 1-1/2 years is an obvious indication of the dept of transport having breached the RTI guidelines.

2. You should file a case with the CCD. This is very simple to do and you do not need to be present in Delhi to do this as this can be done simply by writing to them. CCD can hold an independent enquiry into this matter.

I fully agree with yourself & Shivani that prototype testing for sidecars is clearly not required. Most countries only require a 'Type Approval' of the motor vehicle class & such minor adaptations for adapting the vehicle to personal disability need no further official testing.

Now digressing from the topic of sidecars
I do not agree with Shivani when she says that cars fitted with hand controls are altered tremedously as I think the alteration is minor and, in most cases, easily detachable - making the car easily usable by other non-disabled family members. Therefore, in my opinion it is not a good idea to class a hand operated car as an invalid carriage, unless ofcourse the car is only intended to be driven exclusively by a disabled driver. I do however agree that there should be some minimum standards and certification system for car adaptations (including hand controls) to ensure safety of users.

Vikas

_________________
Vikas

AccessAbility

[JAGDISHNM]

Dear Vikas & Shivani,
Hi,
I am following up with Ministry on this issue through RTI  Act.
I feel others involved in disability rights field should also join for this vital rehabilitation issue & write directly to the Ministry & CCPD.
I would request if any one reading this post can provide Registration details of such vehicles registered in other states / union territories after 2002.
The State Disability Commissioner is not responding even after RTI application. The CCPD has simply washed its hands initially saying the matter needs to be pursued with Ministry of Surface Transport  / or State Govt. Thereafter to my detailed letter dt. 27/3/07, CCPD despite reminders is not responding or acknowledging.
As  regards prototype approval all 3 agencies stipulated in M.V. Act i.e. ARAI-Pune, VRDE-Ahmednagar & CIRT-Pune have given me written confirmation that for sidecar / side-wheels no prototype testing or approval is required & these letters are presented to all authorities.

The entire documents, developments, delay, etc. in this matter at State & Central Govt. level only establishes  apathy of authorities for addressing this simple issue since Disabled do not form powerful lobby & also Media being not interested for such non sensational issue. Let RTO apply amended provisions of Sec. 52 ( alterations) for TELCO, ASHOK-LEYLAND, VOLVO chassis or elite class’s vehicles modified by Dilip Chabria and then face the music from power groups of transporters & influential class.


As per my understanding cars fitted with hand controls are also falling under definition of Invalid Carriage & will also merit exemption from OTT as per State Taxation Law & also the Driving License also needs to be endorsed  for driving such modified / altered car for use by disabled.


Thanks & Regards

Dear Vikas & Shivani,
Hi,
I am following up with Ministry on this issue through RTI  Act.
I feel others involved in disability rights field should also join for this vital rehabilitation issue & write directly to the Ministry & CCPD.
I would request if any one reading this post can provide Registration details of such vehicles registered in other states / union territories after 2002.
The State Disability Commissioner is not responding even after RTI application. The CCPD has simply washed its hands initially saying the matter needs to be pursued with Ministry of Surface Transport  / or State Govt. Thereafter to my detailed letter dt. 27/3/07, CCPD despite reminders is not responding or acknowledging.
As  regards prototype approval all 3 agencies stipulated in M.V. Act i.e. ARAI-Pune, VRDE-Ahmednagar & CIRT-Pune have given me written confirmation that for sidecar / side-wheels no prototype testing or approval is required & these letters are presented to all authorities.

The entire documents, developments, delay, etc. in this matter at State & Central Govt. level only establishes  apathy of authorities for addressing this simple issue since Disabled do not form powerful lobby & also Media being not interested for such non sensational issue. Let RTO apply amended provisions of Sec. 52 ( alterations) for TELCO, ASHOK-LEYLAND, VOLVO chassis or elite class’s vehicles modified by Dilip Chabria and then face the music from power groups of transporters & influential class.


As per my understanding cars fitted with hand controls are also falling under definition of Invalid Carriage & will also merit exemption from OTT as per State Taxation Law & also the Driving License also needs to be endorsed  for driving such modified / altered car for use by disabled.


Thanks & Regards

[JAGDISHNM]

Dear friends,
Pl. read article at following link

http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1104007

regards

Dear friends,
Pl. read article at following link

http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1104007

regards

[Shivani]

Good article. I do hope something comes out of it.

regards,
Shivani

Good article. I do hope something comes out of it.

regards,
Shivani

[JAGDISHNM]

DEAR FRIENDS,

PL. READ  THE NEWS ARTICLE AT FOLLOWING LINK,

http://www.hindu.com/2006/02/03/stories/2006020321640400.htm

THANKS

DEAR FRIENDS,

PL. READ  THE NEWS ARTICLE AT FOLLOWING LINK,

http://www.hindu.com/2006/02/03/stories/2006020321640400.htm

THANKS

[JAGDISHNM]

DEAR FRIENDS,
LATEST DEVELOPEMENTS.
GOVT. OF INDIA IS PROPOSING TO PLACE GUIDELINES FOR VEHICLES OF DISABLED, BUT BUT ........ THESE PROPOSALS IS DRACONIAN & IMPOSSIBLE TO COMPLY.
MY LATEST REPRESENTATION IS PASTED HEREWITH.
I AM NOT HOPEFUL OF ANY POSITIVE & EARLY SOLUTION, ANY WAYS TRYING IS ESSENTIAL.
REGARDS


-----------------------COPY------------------------------

JAGDISH  N. MOTWANI
1/34, Darshan CHS.
SHIVDHAM Complex, Dindoshi, Mumbai-400097.
Email-  jmotwani@vsnl.net /
Tel. 28497204./9869450565.
                                        7th Sept., 2007.
Shri Saroj Kumar Dash,
Joint  Secretary & Appellate Authority,
MINISTRY OF SHIPPING, ROAD TRANSPORT & HIGHWAYS
DEPARTMENT OF ROAD TRANSPORT & HIGHWAYS
Privahan  Bhavan, 1, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001

Respected  Sir ,
Sub.-      Appeal  for letter  No. RT-11016/5/2007-MVL dated 22/8/07.
A/C- Issue of Ban on Registration of Invalid Carriages in Kerala, Maharashtra, etc.

     At the outset & to begin with I apologize in advance for harsh & hard hitting language of this communication, however, I am confident that yourgoodself will understand & appreciate frustration & difficulties being faced by disabled due to your dept.’s error in not taking necessary precautions whilst amending Sec. 52 of M.V. Act in 2000/2002 & then subsequent inaction for rectifying the mistake. Sir, in this communication; please read the word “ you “ as plural meaning Dept. of Road Transport & Highways.

     Sir, the contents of your letter dt.22/8/07 & as per Extracts of meeting of 11/6/07 of CMVR-TSC, I understand that you are proposing, for each Model ( vehicle ) specific approval of Retro fitment  Kit by any kit manufacturer / assembler / modifier will be essential & only  pre-approved workshops will be allowed to carry out such fitment. This is step is going back to earlier License / Permit Raj & against public policy of liberalization. The proposed complicated system is like putting horse before the cart. A mere modification of Definition of Invalid Carriage U/S 2(1 { because of your wrong interpretation of words NOT MERELY ADOPTED } on par with Definition  under THE BOMBAY  MOTOR VEHICLES  TAX ACT,1958,Section 3(1) (1A)(xii) [ i.e. “All motor vehicles specially adopted for the use of persons suffering from a physical defect or disability, where such vehicles are owned or are used solely, by persons suffering from such a defect or disability.” ] WOULD SOLVE THE ENTIRE STALEMATE. The concerned RTO officials can verify for certain prescribed minimum standards / specifications whilst registering such vehicles. Further if required certificate from Licensed Automobile Surveyor cum Valuer can also be taken.

     Please note that anyway prior to 2002 Amendment & even now in few states & U.T.s’ the Invalid Carriages were / are being registered after inspection & examination by R.T.O. officials with necessary Medical Fitness Certificate from Govt. hospital. This simple & effective procedure is a win – win situation for all. Your concern for safety aspects of Disabled riders / drivers & public / third party on roads is appreciated but please note that none of the Central or State Govt. departments have any statistics / data  about accident, vehicle failure or even registration of vehicles used by disabled. Hence, your reluctance to continue old practice is not supported with any facts & figures.
You may again note that even after Detarriffing of Motor Insurance Premium, both Public & Private Insurance companies allow 25% discount for sidecar & 33% discount for vehicles used by disabled. Further on my personal enquiries with few Motor Insurance Surveyors & MACT Advocates, I am informed that they have very - very rarely heard of any vehicle accident claim for sidecar or disabled driven vehicle. Hence your jeopardizing the mobility of disabled does not merit any sympathy for safety aspects & appears to be vindictive action for rigorous follow up being done by affected disabled, CCPD, Min. of Social Justice & Empowerment, etc. You may also note that Maharashtra T.C. through its letters dt. 16/1/06 & 13/3/07 and even State Govt. through its letter dt.6/3/07 have specifically requested for granting exemption from any Prototype approval. Further both ARAI & VRDE through their respective letters dt. 16/11/06 & 20/2/07 have suggested / recommended for inspection / examination by RTO officials – on par with past prevalent practice / procedure in Maharashtra & Kerala. For safety of public & occupants / drivers it will be ideal & practical to concentrate your energies & skills for devising Prototype Approval & Workshop approval Guidelines for Body building for Buses, Trucks, Tankers, etc. which currently enjoy your immunity despite very – very adverse accident records & known poor quality / alterations with ULW, chassis / frame extensions, etc.. Similarly how alterations are being encouraged for elite class’s cars & bikes like being done by D.C. Design Studio ( www.dcdesign.co.in) & others.  

     The involved Govt. officials sitting in A.C. Cabins & moving in Govt. vehicles need to be briefed about ground realities & facts. For your information, you may know that Maruti Udyog in past was manufacturing cars for disabled, but same was stopped due to limited demand. In this regard I can produce copy of letter No. PP04/01/1066 dt. 22/1/02 from Mr. Surojit Gupta, Dy. Director, SIAM to Ms. Jayanthi G., Under Sect., Min. of Heavy Ind. & Pub. Enterprises. Similarly LML-Vespa had introduced 4 wheel scooter in late eighties & soon it was taken out of production due to lack of adequate sales of that model. Hence, pl. appreciate that for any Automobile Manufacturer selling company fitted vehicle for disabled is not commercially viable. Considering this alteration or adoption of vehicle with attachments like sidecar or side wheels is feasible only at local level. Through my email dt. 20/8/07 I have informed you with evidence about Smt. Sonia Gandhi & M/S  Rajiv Gandhi Foundation distributing altered Kinetic scooters in coordination with Kinetic Motors Ltd. & local workshop/s ( @ links  http://www.hindu.com/2003/06/23/stories/2003062306280400.htm  & http://www.kinetic2wheelers.com/mediacenter/pressreleases/press_rg_foundation.php  ). Just for your academic interest Cozy sidecar in Mumbai costs app. Rs. 15000/- Whereas Viraj sidecar in Ahemedabad costs app. Rs. !0000/-, similarly Cozy side-wheels cost app. Rs. 11000/- whereas Pune supplier’s cost is app. Rs. 6000/-. This is to be added to cost of Honda or Kinetic scooter of app. Rs. 40000/-. Hence pl. understand the economics & viability of any complicated Prototype Approval System. A piece of additional information, till last decade Mumbai had 3 leading sidecar manufactures i.e. GLOBE, COZY & CONTINENTAL, but 2 closed down the business due to its commercial non viability. Hence it is imperative to know whether you or ARAI has conducted any study or short listed any such capable kit manufacturers spread across length & breath of India. When large manufacturers can’t sustain selling Invalid Carriages then how small individual workshop owners can afford & be capable of sustaining for this line of business. Hence your proposed guidelines are only impossible utopian concepts & in short your intention is to continue to harass the disabled by inventing rules which are not possible to comply. In fact after resolving the current stalemate for future you may recommend to legislature for allowing handsome incentives OR fixing up quotas for Invalid Carriage Manufacturing amongst SIAM or other identified kit manufacturers. Please note that most of the disabled who invest app. Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 55.000/- for scooter with fitting ( or additional minimum Rs. 35,000/- for Car fitment Kit as manufactured by M/S Kotkar, Pune – your / ARAI’s invitees ), any exemption of tax of few thousand Rupees by State or Central Govt.  is not the issue & if essential these benefits if & as available may be revoked, but restart the registration.

     Now, your meeting at ARAI, Pune on 2/5/07 was conducted with total disregard to the principles of equity, justice & fair-play. The list of attendees to the meeting clearly establish your intention to avoid any proper solution & at the same time falsely portraying about your concern  for disabled. For e.g. from SIAM representatives of TELCO & BAJAJ were called, who do not manufacture popular auto-transmission vehicles used by disabled, the proper representation should have been from MARUTI / HYUNDAI  & HONDA / KINETIC (Pune) – whose cars & scooters are widely used for Invalid Carriages. Similarly, expertise of both Doctors of Deenanath Mangeshkar hospital is questionable as they are  cardiologist / physician, the status of Hospital i.e. whether Govt. or Private & its association with disability matters is not known. Their stipulation for disability up to 25% is totally inconsistent with Govt.’s norms for disability evaluation & its percentage. Please note that mere disability of one leg results in more than 25% disability. Even for getting any benefits of Disability, percentage has to be more than 40%. The right medical advise / recommendation could come from dealing experts like Dr. B.D. Athani, Director, A.I.I.P.M.R., Mumbai, who is orthopedic surgeon having experience of about 2 decades in disability rehabilitation / treatment / certification with central Govt. institute. Further, the field experts like Dr. P.S. Pasricha, IPS, Mumbai-DGP & earlier T.C. & having Ph.D. in Traffic Management to his credit would have graced the discussions. Also better advises could have come from Motor Surveyors associated with I.R.D.A.’s IIISLA. More importantly to have free play by unconcerned or to avoid any resistance  neither Govt. officials from Disability Commissioner’s office ( i.e. CCPD, Delhi or State CPD having office at Pune itself ) nor representatives of any NGOs’ engaged with Disability Rights were called. Sir isn’t it surprising that earlier on 9/4/07 you had invited me to Delhi, but for this vital meeting at Pune, which is nearer to Mumbai, no opportunity of any representation by affected class was given.

     Please not that this problem is not unique to me & through my email dt. 20/8/07 I have already informed ( through internet links ) about similar problems being faced by several other disabled. As usual no response is received for this & my other emails. I am sure the concerned officials must have turned nelsons eye towards all communications for this issue. Your action & inaction not only violates constitutional provisions of welfare state & protection of rights of underprivileged class, but also is in gross violation of Chapter VIII ( Non Discrimination), etc. of The Persons With Disabilities ( Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights & Full Participation ) Act, 1995 effective from 7/2/96. Further, you may note that The Govt. of India on 31/3/07 has signed United Nations’ Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities & clear breach of its Articles 4, 9, 20 & 26 is being done by you. If required you may seek expert opinion about your above cited violations of various laws apart from seeking independent legal opinion about earlier cited provisions of M.V. Act & Rules like definition of  I.C., Sidecar fitment specifications (as under 166 of Maharashtra & 324 of A.P. Rules), Your Notification No. SO-1248(E) dt. 5/11/04, etc.

     Further, you may also advise concerned PIO for deficiencies in information / records provided for following vis-à-vis my application dt. 15/7/07;
1.     Complete set  of minutes of meeting of CMVR-TSC are not given only selective extracts are given without names of participants.
2.     No information is given about Section of Rule of M.V. legislation allowing unapproved Body Building for Bus, Truck, Tanker, etc.
3.     If State govt. was empowered to circumvent Amended Sec. 52 then why no specific communication was send to all state Govt.s’ like Maharashtra, Kerala, etc.
4.     When Govt. of Maharashtra letter was received by you on 25/1/06 then why no details of any action / inaction is provided till Jan., 2007 ( i.e. when I initiated RTI applications ).
5.     The repeated assurance of matter being under consideration needs to be elaborated along with status of approval of DGHS ( what DGHS stands for ?) as stated in Minutes.
6.     Proposed further action if possible to be known.

In case your goodself desires to hold personal meeting then necessary arrangement / approval for airfare & airport pickup / drop may be provided. Alternatively video conferencing may be arranged. In case for any issue/s your goodself feels that this is seeking fresh information & does not qualify as appeal then to avoid any delay / complication I am enclosing herewith P.O. for Rs. 10/-. Further, still few issues raised may not strictly fall within the preview of RTI Act, but definitely merit due consideration & response / action from concerned senior officials for this critical welfare issue.

Thanking you in anticipation of your favourable & early action,
                                        Yours,


                                   ( Jagdish N. Motwani)
Enclosed – As above.

DEAR FRIENDS,
LATEST DEVELOPEMENTS.
GOVT. OF INDIA IS PROPOSING TO PLACE GUIDELINES FOR VEHICLES OF DISABLED, BUT BUT ........ THESE PROPOSALS IS DRACONIAN & IMPOSSIBLE TO COMPLY.
MY LATEST REPRESENTATION IS PASTED HEREWITH.
I AM NOT HOPEFUL OF ANY POSITIVE & EARLY SOLUTION, ANY WAYS TRYING IS ESSENTIAL.
REGARDS


-----------------------COPY------------------------------

JAGDISH  N. MOTWANI
1/34, Darshan CHS.
SHIVDHAM Complex, Dindoshi, Mumbai-400097.
Email-  jmotwani@vsnl.net /
Tel. 28497204./9869450565.
                                        7th Sept., 2007.
Shri Saroj Kumar Dash,
Joint  Secretary & Appellate Authority,
MINISTRY OF SHIPPING, ROAD TRANSPORT & HIGHWAYS
DEPARTMENT OF ROAD TRANSPORT & HIGHWAYS
Privahan  Bhavan, 1, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001

Respected  Sir ,
Sub.-      Appeal  for letter  No. RT-11016/5/2007-MVL dated 22/8/07.
A/C- Issue of Ban on Registration of Invalid Carriages in Kerala, Maharashtra, etc.

     At the outset & to begin with I apologize in advance for harsh & hard hitting language of this communication, however, I am confident that yourgoodself will understand & appreciate frustration & difficulties being faced by disabled due to your dept.’s error in not taking necessary precautions whilst amending Sec. 52 of M.V. Act in 2000/2002 & then subsequent inaction for rectifying the mistake. Sir, in this communication; please read the word “ you “ as plural meaning Dept. of Road Transport & Highways.

     Sir, the contents of your letter dt.22/8/07 & as per Extracts of meeting of 11/6/07 of CMVR-TSC, I understand that you are proposing, for each Model ( vehicle ) specific approval of Retro fitment  Kit by any kit manufacturer / assembler / modifier will be essential & only  pre-approved workshops will be allowed to carry out such fitment. This is step is going back to earlier License / Permit Raj & against public policy of liberalization. The proposed complicated system is like putting horse before the cart. A mere modification of Definition of Invalid Carriage U/S 2(1 { because of your wrong interpretation of words NOT MERELY ADOPTED } on par with Definition  under THE BOMBAY  MOTOR VEHICLES  TAX ACT,1958,Section 3(1) (1A)(xii) [ i.e. “All motor vehicles specially adopted for the use of persons suffering from a physical defect or disability, where such vehicles are owned or are used solely, by persons suffering from such a defect or disability.” ] WOULD SOLVE THE ENTIRE STALEMATE. The concerned RTO officials can verify for certain prescribed minimum standards / specifications whilst registering such vehicles. Further if required certificate from Licensed Automobile Surveyor cum Valuer can also be taken.

     Please note that anyway prior to 2002 Amendment & even now in few states & U.T.s’ the Invalid Carriages were / are being registered after inspection & examination by R.T.O. officials with necessary Medical Fitness Certificate from Govt. hospital. This simple & effective procedure is a win – win situation for all. Your concern for safety aspects of Disabled riders / drivers & public / third party on roads is appreciated but please note that none of the Central or State Govt. departments have any statistics / data  about accident, vehicle failure or even registration of vehicles used by disabled. Hence, your reluctance to continue old practice is not supported with any facts & figures.
You may again note that even after Detarriffing of Motor Insurance Premium, both Public & Private Insurance companies allow 25% discount for sidecar & 33% discount for vehicles used by disabled. Further on my personal enquiries with few Motor Insurance Surveyors & MACT Advocates, I am informed that they have very - very rarely heard of any vehicle accident claim for sidecar or disabled driven vehicle. Hence your jeopardizing the mobility of disabled does not merit any sympathy for safety aspects & appears to be vindictive action for rigorous follow up being done by affected disabled, CCPD, Min. of Social Justice & Empowerment, etc. You may also note that Maharashtra T.C. through its letters dt. 16/1/06 & 13/3/07 and even State Govt. through its letter dt.6/3/07 have specifically requested for granting exemption from any Prototype approval. Further both ARAI & VRDE through their respective letters dt. 16/11/06 & 20/2/07 have suggested / recommended for inspection / examination by RTO officials – on par with past prevalent practice / procedure in Maharashtra & Kerala. For safety of public & occupants / drivers it will be ideal & practical to concentrate your energies & skills for devising Prototype Approval & Workshop approval Guidelines for Body building for Buses, Trucks, Tankers, etc. which currently enjoy your immunity despite very – very adverse accident records & known poor quality / alterations with ULW, chassis / frame extensions, etc.. Similarly how alterations are being encouraged for elite class’s cars & bikes like being done by D.C. Design Studio ( www.dcdesign.co.in) & others.  

     The involved Govt. officials sitting in A.C. Cabins & moving in Govt. vehicles need to be briefed about ground realities & facts. For your information, you may know that Maruti Udyog in past was manufacturing cars for disabled, but same was stopped due to limited demand. In this regard I can produce copy of letter No. PP04/01/1066 dt. 22/1/02 from Mr. Surojit Gupta, Dy. Director, SIAM to Ms. Jayanthi G., Under Sect., Min. of Heavy Ind. & Pub. Enterprises. Similarly LML-Vespa had introduced 4 wheel scooter in late eighties & soon it was taken out of production due to lack of adequate sales of that model. Hence, pl. appreciate that for any Automobile Manufacturer selling company fitted vehicle for disabled is not commercially viable. Considering this alteration or adoption of vehicle with attachments like sidecar or side wheels is feasible only at local level. Through my email dt. 20/8/07 I have informed you with evidence about Smt. Sonia Gandhi & M/S  Rajiv Gandhi Foundation distributing altered Kinetic scooters in coordination with Kinetic Motors Ltd. & local workshop/s ( @ links  http://www.hindu.com/2003/06/23/stories/2003062306280400.htm  & http://www.kinetic2wheelers.com/mediacenter/pressreleases/press_rg_foundation.php  ). Just for your academic interest Cozy sidecar in Mumbai costs app. Rs. 15000/- Whereas Viraj sidecar in Ahemedabad costs app. Rs. !0000/-, similarly Cozy side-wheels cost app. Rs. 11000/- whereas Pune supplier’s cost is app. Rs. 6000/-. This is to be added to cost of Honda or Kinetic scooter of app. Rs. 40000/-. Hence pl. understand the economics & viability of any complicated Prototype Approval System. A piece of additional information, till last decade Mumbai had 3 leading sidecar manufactures i.e. GLOBE, COZY & CONTINENTAL, but 2 closed down the business due to its commercial non viability. Hence it is imperative to know whether you or ARAI has conducted any study or short listed any such capable kit manufacturers spread across length & breath of India. When large manufacturers can’t sustain selling Invalid Carriages then how small individual workshop owners can afford & be capable of sustaining for this line of business. Hence your proposed guidelines are only impossible utopian concepts & in short your intention is to continue to harass the disabled by inventing rules which are not possible to comply. In fact after resolving the current stalemate for future you may recommend to legislature for allowing handsome incentives OR fixing up quotas for Invalid Carriage Manufacturing amongst SIAM or other identified kit manufacturers. Please note that most of the disabled who invest app. Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 55.000/- for scooter with fitting ( or additional minimum Rs. 35,000/- for Car fitment Kit as manufactured by M/S Kotkar, Pune – your / ARAI’s invitees ), any exemption of tax of few thousand Rupees by State or Central Govt.  is not the issue & if essential these benefits if & as available may be revoked, but restart the registration.

     Now, your meeting at ARAI, Pune on 2/5/07 was conducted with total disregard to the principles of equity, justice & fair-play. The list of attendees to the meeting clearly establish your intention to avoid any proper solution & at the same time falsely portraying about your concern  for disabled. For e.g. from SIAM representatives of TELCO & BAJAJ were called, who do not manufacture popular auto-transmission vehicles used by disabled, the proper representation should have been from MARUTI / HYUNDAI  & HONDA / KINETIC (Pune) – whose cars & scooters are widely used for Invalid Carriages. Similarly, expertise of both Doctors of Deenanath Mangeshkar hospital is questionable as they are  cardiologist / physician, the status of Hospital i.e. whether Govt. or Private & its association with disability matters is not known. Their stipulation for disability up to 25% is totally inconsistent with Govt.’s norms for disability evaluation & its percentage. Please note that mere disability of one leg results in more than 25% disability. Even for getting any benefits of Disability, percentage has to be more than 40%. The right medical advise / recommendation could come from dealing experts like Dr. B.D. Athani, Director, A.I.I.P.M.R., Mumbai, who is orthopedic surgeon having experience of about 2 decades in disability rehabilitation / treatment / certification with central Govt. institute. Further, the field experts like Dr. P.S. Pasricha, IPS, Mumbai-DGP & earlier T.C. & having Ph.D. in Traffic Management to his credit would have graced the discussions. Also better advises could have come from Motor Surveyors associated with I.R.D.A.’s IIISLA. More importantly to have free play by unconcerned or to avoid any resistance  neither Govt. officials from Disability Commissioner’s office ( i.e. CCPD, Delhi or State CPD having office at Pune itself ) nor representatives of any NGOs’ engaged with Disability Rights were called. Sir isn’t it surprising that earlier on 9/4/07 you had invited me to Delhi, but for this vital meeting at Pune, which is nearer to Mumbai, no opportunity of any representation by affected class was given.

     Please not that this problem is not unique to me & through my email dt. 20/8/07 I have already informed ( through internet links ) about similar problems being faced by several other disabled. As usual no response is received for this & my other emails. I am sure the concerned officials must have turned nelsons eye towards all communications for this issue. Your action & inaction not only violates constitutional provisions of welfare state & protection of rights of underprivileged class, but also is in gross violation of Chapter VIII ( Non Discrimination), etc. of The Persons With Disabilities ( Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights & Full Participation ) Act, 1995 effective from 7/2/96. Further, you may note that The Govt. of India on 31/3/07 has signed United Nations’ Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities & clear breach of its Articles 4, 9, 20 & 26 is being done by you. If required you may seek expert opinion about your above cited violations of various laws apart from seeking independent legal opinion about earlier cited provisions of M.V. Act & Rules like definition of  I.C., Sidecar fitment specifications (as under 166 of Maharashtra & 324 of A.P. Rules), Your Notification No. SO-1248(E) dt. 5/11/04, etc.

     Further, you may also advise concerned PIO for deficiencies in information / records provided for following vis-à-vis my application dt. 15/7/07;
1.     Complete set  of minutes of meeting of CMVR-TSC are not given only selective extracts are given without names of participants.
2.     No information is given about Section of Rule of M.V. legislation allowing unapproved Body Building for Bus, Truck, Tanker, etc.
3.     If State govt. was empowered to circumvent Amended Sec. 52 then why no specific communication was send to all state Govt.s’ like Maharashtra, Kerala, etc.
4.     When Govt. of Maharashtra letter was received by you on 25/1/06 then why no details of any action / inaction is provided till Jan., 2007 ( i.e. when I initiated RTI applications ).
5.     The repeated assurance of matter being under consideration needs to be elaborated along with status of approval of DGHS ( what DGHS stands for ?) as stated in Minutes.
6.     Proposed further action if possible to be known.

In case your goodself desires to hold personal meeting then necessary arrangement / approval for airfare & airport pickup / drop may be provided. Alternatively video conferencing may be arranged. In case for any issue/s your goodself feels that this is seeking fresh information & does not qualify as appeal then to avoid any delay / complication I am enclosing herewith P.O. for Rs. 10/-. Further, still few issues raised may not strictly fall within the preview of RTI Act, but definitely merit due consideration & response / action from concerned senior officials for this critical welfare issue.

Thanking you in anticipation of your favourable & early action,
                                        Yours,


                                   ( Jagdish N. Motwani)
Enclosed – As above.

[JAGDISHNM]

HI FRIENDS,
LATEST DEVELOPEMENTS POSTED HEREWITH.
FRIENDS APART FROM CALLING OR SENDING PERSONAL EMAILS FOR YOUR SIMILLAR PROBLEM, PL. ALSO SEND YOUR REPRESENTATION TO CONCERNED AUTHORITIES / DEPT.S'.
WITH REGARDS

_______________COPY__________________________

Jagdish N. Motwani
1/34, Darshan CHS. SHIVDHAM Complex, Dindoshi, Mumbai-400097.
Email-  jmotwani@vsnl.net
Tel. 28497204./9869450565.
                              10th Sep. 2007
NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
Faridkot House, Copernicus Marg,
New Delhi-110001.
                    Kind Attention- Mr. R. Nihal Pedric, Asstt. Registrar (Law),
                               Ms. S. Manjula, PIO
Respected Sirs,
Re. – Rejoinder  Application to Case No. 1733/13/2006-2007/OC
A/C - Blanket  Ban on Registration of Vehicles used by Disabled from 2003.
     
     This acknowledges with thanks for receipt of your letter No. 16(1)/PIO/2005(RTI)/743 dt. 21/9/07 in response to my last detailed letter dt. 10/9/07. After perusing the contents of your letters dt. 6/9/07 to concerned Secretaries of State & Central Govt.s’ , I wish to highlight the following key issues;
1.     This problem is not unique to myself & not just restricted to Maharashtra, but several disabled are suffering. Details of few live cases are given through 4 different web-links.
2.     The State Govt. has smartly washed its hands off by again recommending the matter to Central Govt. Through latest letter No. MVR-0902/CR-46-A/D-2(4)/ON-19665 dt. 1/8/07, Maharashtra Transport Commissioner has again recommended with 6 specific disabled persons’ cases ( including myself ) for Exemption for alteration / prototype approval to Joint Secretary, Govt. of India.
3.     Through my last letter cum RTI application dt. 10/9/07, I have conveyed to your good selves  about latest harassment  tool being used by Ministry through proposing for Impossible Retro fitment Kit Approval System instead of restoring the prevalent procedure, which is time tested, simple, safe, viable, etc. Copy of  letter  No. RT-11016/5/2007-MVL dated 22/8/07 was attached with my said letter.
4.     The proposed Kit Approval System is decided with total disregard to ground realities, without involving any proper representation & experts, without any supporting data or statistics to question safety, etc. I have contested this in detail to the concerned Jt. Sect. Through my appeal dt. 7/9/07. Copy of this is again attached herewith for ready reference.
5.     The stalemate & inaction over long period is evident from documents supplied.
6.     The Dept. of Road Transport & Highways ’s action & inaction not only violates constitutional provisions of welfare state & protection of rights of underprivileged class, but also is in gross violation of Chapter VIII ( Non Discrimination), etc. of The Persons With Disabilities ( Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights & Full Participation ) Act, 1995. Further, clear breach of  Articles 4, 9, 20 & 26 of United Nations’ Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities is being done. For this necessary penalties / fines  may be imposed on responsible / erring officials.

I feel now considering you Notice  The Dept. of Road Transport & Highways may inform / submit about early resolution of the matter as it is awaiting approval of DGHS. Please treat this rejoinder application as caveat, as the proposal finalized by Ministry will not resolve the problem since  complicated Kit Approval System will neither be commercially nor geographically viable for disabled spread across small towns & villages. Apart from my letter dt. 7/9/07 to Jt. Sect. I am also writing to Director, ARAI, Pune ( A Govt. of India Enterprise) who have drafted the proposed improper system, copy of this letter is also attached for reference in this matter.

Thanking you in anticipation of early & favourable action.     
                                        Yours,
          
                                   
                                                                              ( Jagdish  N.  Motwani )

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Recorded Delivery
Jagdish N. Motwani
1/34, Darshan CHS. SHIVDHAM Complex, Dindoshi, Mumbai-400097.
Email-  jmotwani@vsnl.net
Tel. 28497204./9869450565.
                              26th Sep. 2007
The Director,
The Automotive Research Association of India ( ARAI),
S. No. 102, Vetal Hill, Off Paud Road,
Kothrud, Pune- 411038.

Respected Sir,
Re.- Information about proposed Retro fitment Kit Approval System for        Invalid Carriages / vehicles used by disabled.

At the outset this acknowledges with thanks for your letter No. ARAI/APX/CMVR-CORR/06-07/172 dt. 16/11/06.
ARAI is fully aware about the difficulties being faced by disabled riders / drivers in registration of INVALID CARRIAGE ( I/C ) in few states like Kerala & Maharashtra. Now, through Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport & Highways ( MOSRT&H ), I am informed about your new proposals, which were finalized during meeting at ARAI, Pune on 28/5/07 & subsequently presented during meeting of CMVR-TSC on 11/6/07.

Now, considering decisions at your meeting of 28/5/07, kindly inform me about the following key issues;
1.     Basis of calling participants for this meeting i.e. like,
·     Why only Maharashtra TC/RTO representatives were invited when even Kerala RTO/TC is similarly harassing the disabled.
·     Why from SIAM only Tata Motors & Bajaj Auto were represented ( who do not manufacture widely used Auto-transmission cars / scooters used by disabled) instead of Maruti / Hyndai & Honda / Kinetic(Pune).
·     The involvement of both Doctors in disability evaluation / treatment / rehabilitation / certification is not known as they apparently are neither from Govt. Hospital nor are Orthopedic Surgeons.
·     Why representatives of few other modification / fitment ( Kit ) manufacturers like Cozy, Ferro-Equip, etc were not invited for broader representation.
·     When Safety aspects were to be deliberated then why ultimate losers i.e. Insurers’ representation was not sought.
·     Why no representatives from Disability Welfare NGOs’ or Govt. Dept.s’ / Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment were not invited. Incidentally the State Disability Commissioner’s Office is at Pune itself. ( Pl. note that only wearer knows where the shoe pinches the most ).
2.     Whether any Study / Research / Field-test was done for making these proposals ? If yes, then details of the same may be provided.
3.     Whether ARAI or MOSRT&H has collected any Data / Statistics / Records about the usage, accident-records, vehicle failure cases, etc. for I/C ?
4.     On what basis you have concluded that sidecar fitment is lower safety option, when world over Insurers offer substantial discounts in premium for attachment of sidecar to two wheeler. The insurers have better insight for accidental damage & TPPI / TPPD liability claims.
5.     Please not that sidecar fitment is a good old time tested option for disabled & it is only in last decade the 2 side wheels option is available. Further, in most cases the sidecar is more functional to disabled as their crutches, bag, rain-coat, etc can be conveniently kept in sidecar.
6.     Has any advises from Ministry of Health or Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment been sought for restricting disability up to 25% . Your recommendations about nature of disability are contradictory to the same. As per Govt. & Orthopedic Association guidelines mere disability of one leg will result in above 25% Disability.
7.     What is the meaning of “ Model ( Vehicle ) specific approval will be given “ ?
8.     Approximate expenses & time involved in your proposed Kit Approval System ?
9.     Whether any such Kit Manufacturers spread across entire India are identified ? If no, then on what basis viability of the procedure is determined ?
10.     Whether any incentives or tax rebates are proposed for such Kit fitment ?
11.     Why existing & smoothly functioning simple procedure as enlisted in your letter dt. 16/11/06 & also recommended by VRDE, Ahmednagar ( letter dt. 20/2/07 ) & CIRT, Pune ( letter dt. 13/3/07 ) is being dispensed with, without any adverse records / data. Copies of these 3 letters are enclosed herewith for your ready reference.
12.     Whether any similar Prototype Approval System exists or is proposed for fabrication / fitment of Load / Passenger- Body, Tank, Cabin, etc. for Trucks, Buses, Tankers, etc.? Specially as, Telco, Ashok-Leyland, etc. only supply Engine & Chassis Assembly for such Commercial Vehicles & adverse accident records ( & low safety ) of these vehicles is in public domain.

Sir, kindly understand that due to erroneous amendment to Sec. 52 of M.V. Act & subsequent wrong interpretation of Sec. 2(1, the disabled are being harassed for last 5 years. Surprisingly, the culprits i.e. MOSRT&H & TCs’ have not initiated any action for first 4 years & now through you they are ensuring such continued harassment. Please note that  such complicated Kit Approval System will neither be commercially nor geographically viable for disabled spread across small towns & villages. The established procedure of Registration based on Medical Evaluation & RTO inspector’s inspection / examination of vehicle & rider / driver can be improvised by giving internal viable guidelines to RTOs’ like about Reflective Tapes, Disability Sign Sticker, etc. Sir, let us not degrade / question the proficiency of Motor Vehicle Inspector in RTO about judging safety & suitability for registering I/C, as this has worked well for last several decades.

On this issue, I have already requested for your intervention / response through my emails dt. 12/9/07, 19/9/07 & 23/9/07 ( send at urdhwareshe.apx@araiindia.com  & director@araiindia.com ). Now considering long stalemate & need for urgent corrective action, I am constrained in making this letter as Application under RTI Act. As required P.O. of Rs. 10/- towards fees payable is enclosed herewith. The applied information / records may be kindly posted / couriered to me.
Thanking you in anticipation & apologizing for the inconvenience caused.
                              Yours,


                    ( Jagdish  N.  Motwani )  
Enclosed-  Above said letters & P.O. of Rs. 10/-.

HI FRIENDS,
LATEST DEVELOPEMENTS POSTED HEREWITH.
FRIENDS APART FROM CALLING OR SENDING PERSONAL EMAILS FOR YOUR SIMILLAR PROBLEM, PL. ALSO SEND YOUR REPRESENTATION TO CONCERNED AUTHORITIES / DEPT.S'.
WITH REGARDS

_______________COPY__________________________

Jagdish N. Motwani
1/34, Darshan CHS. SHIVDHAM Complex, Dindoshi, Mumbai-400097.
Email-  jmotwani@vsnl.net
Tel. 28497204./9869450565.
                              10th Sep. 2007
NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
Faridkot House, Copernicus Marg,
New Delhi-110001.
                    Kind Attention- Mr. R. Nihal Pedric, Asstt. Registrar (Law),
                               Ms. S. Manjula, PIO
Respected Sirs,
Re. – Rejoinder  Application to Case No. 1733/13/2006-2007/OC
A/C - Blanket  Ban on Registration of Vehicles used by Disabled from 2003.
     
     This acknowledges with thanks for receipt of your letter No. 16(1)/PIO/2005(RTI)/743 dt. 21/9/07 in response to my last detailed letter dt. 10/9/07. After perusing the contents of your letters dt. 6/9/07 to concerned Secretaries of State & Central Govt.s’ , I wish to highlight the following key issues;
1.     This problem is not unique to myself & not just restricted to Maharashtra, but several disabled are suffering. Details of few live cases are given through 4 different web-links.
2.     The State Govt. has smartly washed its hands off by again recommending the matter to Central Govt. Through latest letter No. MVR-0902/CR-46-A/D-2(4)/ON-19665 dt. 1/8/07, Maharashtra Transport Commissioner has again recommended with 6 specific disabled persons’ cases ( including myself ) for Exemption for alteration / prototype approval to Joint Secretary, Govt. of India.
3.     Through my last letter cum RTI application dt. 10/9/07, I have conveyed to your good selves  about latest harassment  tool being used by Ministry through proposing for Impossible Retro fitment Kit Approval System instead of restoring the prevalent procedure, which is time tested, simple, safe, viable, etc. Copy of  letter  No. RT-11016/5/2007-MVL dated 22/8/07 was attached with my said letter.
4.     The proposed Kit Approval System is decided with total disregard to ground realities, without involving any proper representation & experts, without any supporting data or statistics to question safety, etc. I have contested this in detail to the concerned Jt. Sect. Through my appeal dt. 7/9/07. Copy of this is again attached herewith for ready reference.
5.     The stalemate & inaction over long period is evident from documents supplied.
6.     The Dept. of Road Transport & Highways ’s action & inaction not only violates constitutional provisions of welfare state & protection of rights of underprivileged class, but also is in gross violation of Chapter VIII ( Non Discrimination), etc. of The Persons With Disabilities ( Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights & Full Participation ) Act, 1995. Further, clear breach of  Articles 4, 9, 20 & 26 of United Nations’ Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities is being done. For this necessary penalties / fines  may be imposed on responsible / erring officials.

I feel now considering you Notice  The Dept. of Road Transport & Highways may inform / submit about early resolution of the matter as it is awaiting approval of DGHS. Please treat this rejoinder application as caveat, as the proposal finalized by Ministry will not resolve the problem since  complicated Kit Approval System will neither be commercially nor geographically viable for disabled spread across small towns & villages. Apart from my letter dt. 7/9/07 to Jt. Sect. I am also writing to Director, ARAI, Pune ( A Govt. of India Enterprise) who have drafted the proposed improper system, copy of this letter is also attached for reference in this matter.

Thanking you in anticipation of early & favourable action.     
                                        Yours,
          
                                   
                                                                              ( Jagdish  N.  Motwani )

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Recorded Delivery
Jagdish N. Motwani
1/34, Darshan CHS. SHIVDHAM Complex, Dindoshi, Mumbai-400097.
Email-  jmotwani@vsnl.net
Tel. 28497204./9869450565.
                              26th Sep. 2007
The Director,
The Automotive Research Association of India ( ARAI),
S. No. 102, Vetal Hill, Off Paud Road,
Kothrud, Pune- 411038.

Respected Sir,
Re.- Information about proposed Retro fitment Kit Approval System for        Invalid Carriages / vehicles used by disabled.

At the outset this acknowledges with thanks for your letter No. ARAI/APX/CMVR-CORR/06-07/172 dt. 16/11/06.
ARAI is fully aware about the difficulties being faced by disabled riders / drivers in registration of INVALID CARRIAGE ( I/C ) in few states like Kerala & Maharashtra. Now, through Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport & Highways ( MOSRT&H ), I am informed about your new proposals, which were finalized during meeting at ARAI, Pune on 28/5/07 & subsequently presented during meeting of CMVR-TSC on 11/6/07.

Now, considering decisions at your meeting of 28/5/07, kindly inform me about the following key issues;
1.     Basis of calling participants for this meeting i.e. like,
·     Why only Maharashtra TC/RTO representatives were invited when even Kerala RTO/TC is similarly harassing the disabled.
·     Why from SIAM only Tata Motors & Bajaj Auto were represented ( who do not manufacture widely used Auto-transmission cars / scooters used by disabled) instead of Maruti / Hyndai & Honda / Kinetic(Pune).
·     The involvement of both Doctors in disability evaluation / treatment / rehabilitation / certification is not known as they apparently are neither from Govt. Hospital nor are Orthopedic Surgeons.
·     Why representatives of few other modification / fitment ( Kit ) manufacturers like Cozy, Ferro-Equip, etc were not invited for broader representation.
·     When Safety aspects were to be deliberated then why ultimate losers i.e. Insurers’ representation was not sought.
·     Why no representatives from Disability Welfare NGOs’ or Govt. Dept.s’ / Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment were not invited. Incidentally the State Disability Commissioner’s Office is at Pune itself. ( Pl. note that only wearer knows where the shoe pinches the most ).
2.     Whether any Study / Research / Field-test was done for making these proposals ? If yes, then details of the same may be provided.
3.     Whether ARAI or MOSRT&H has collected any Data / Statistics / Records about the usage, accident-records, vehicle failure cases, etc. for I/C ?
4.     On what basis you have concluded that sidecar fitment is lower safety option, when world over Insurers offer substantial discounts in premium for attachment of sidecar to two wheeler. The insurers have better insight for accidental damage & TPPI / TPPD liability claims.
5.     Please not that sidecar fitment is a good old time tested option for disabled & it is only in last decade the 2 side wheels option is available. Further, in most cases the sidecar is more functional to disabled as their crutches, bag, rain-coat, etc can be conveniently kept in sidecar.
6.     Has any advises from Ministry of Health or Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment been sought for restricting disability up to 25% . Your recommendations about nature of disability are contradictory to the same. As per Govt. & Orthopedic Association guidelines mere disability of one leg will result in above 25% Disability.
7.     What is the meaning of “ Model ( Vehicle ) specific approval will be given “ ?
8.     Approximate expenses & time involved in your proposed Kit Approval System ?
9.     Whether any such Kit Manufacturers spread across entire India are identified ? If no, then on what basis viability of the procedure is determined ?
10.     Whether any incentives or tax rebates are proposed for such Kit fitment ?
11.     Why existing & smoothly functioning simple procedure as enlisted in your letter dt. 16/11/06 & also recommended by VRDE, Ahmednagar ( letter dt. 20/2/07 ) & CIRT, Pune ( letter dt. 13/3/07 ) is being dispensed with, without any adverse records / data. Copies of these 3 letters are enclosed herewith for your ready reference.
12.     Whether any similar Prototype Approval System exists or is proposed for fabrication / fitment of Load / Passenger- Body, Tank, Cabin, etc. for Trucks, Buses, Tankers, etc.? Specially as, Telco, Ashok-Leyland, etc. only supply Engine & Chassis Assembly for such Commercial Vehicles & adverse accident records ( & low safety ) of these vehicles is in public domain.

Sir, kindly understand that due to erroneous amendment to Sec. 52 of M.V. Act & subsequent wrong interpretation of Sec. 2(1, the disabled are being harassed for last 5 years. Surprisingly, the culprits i.e. MOSRT&H & TCs’ have not initiated any action for first 4 years & now through you they are ensuring such continued harassment. Please note that  such complicated Kit Approval System will neither be commercially nor geographically viable for disabled spread across small towns & villages. The established procedure of Registration based on Medical Evaluation & RTO inspector’s inspection / examination of vehicle & rider / driver can be improvised by giving internal viable guidelines to RTOs’ like about Reflective Tapes, Disability Sign Sticker, etc. Sir, let us not degrade / question the proficiency of Motor Vehicle Inspector in RTO about judging safety & suitability for registering I/C, as this has worked well for last several decades.

On this issue, I have already requested for your intervention / response through my emails dt. 12/9/07, 19/9/07 & 23/9/07 ( send at urdhwareshe.apx@araiindia.com  & director@araiindia.com ). Now considering long stalemate & need for urgent corrective action, I am constrained in making this letter as Application under RTI Act. As required P.O. of Rs. 10/- towards fees payable is enclosed herewith. The applied information / records may be kindly posted / couriered to me.
Thanking you in anticipation & apologizing for the inconvenience caused.
                              Yours,


                    ( Jagdish  N.  Motwani )  
Enclosed-  Above said letters & P.O. of Rs. 10/-.

[Jmotwani]

Dear Friends
Half battle won, pl. see Govt. circular at following link
https://docs.google.com/a/motwani.info/file/d/0B_wUSdQOUQP4Y1RkcGhWTHZTRGM/edit
Other half we will win through NHRC.
Regards

[quote="JAGDISHNM"]HI FRIENDS,
LATEST DEVELOPEMENTS POSTED HEREWITH.
FRIENDS APART FROM CALLING OR SENDING PERSONAL EMAILS FOR YOUR SIMILLAR PROBLEM, PL. ALSO SEND YOUR REPRESENTATION TO CONCERNED AUTHORITIES / DEPT.S'.
WITH REGARDS

_______________COPY__________________________

Jagdish N. Motwani
1/34, Darshan CHS. SHIVDHAM Complex, Dindoshi, Mumbai-400097.
Email- jmotwani@vsnl.net
Tel. 28497204./9869450565.
10th Sep. 2007
NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
Faridkot House, Copernicus Marg,
New Delhi-110001.
Kind Attention- Mr. R. Nihal Pedric, Asstt. Registrar (Law),
Ms. S. Manjula, PIO
Respected Sirs,
Re. – Rejoinder Application to Case No. 1733/13/2006-2007/OC
A/C - Blanket Ban on Registration of Vehicles used by Disabled from 2003.

This acknowledges with thanks for receipt of your letter No. 16(1)/PIO/2005(RTI)/743 dt. 21/9/07 in response to my last detailed letter dt. 10/9/07. After perusing the contents of your letters dt. 6/9/07 to concerned Secretaries of State & Central Govt.s’ , I wish to highlight the following key issues;
1. This problem is not unique to myself & not just restricted to Maharashtra, but several disabled are suffering. Details of few live cases are given through 4 different web-links.
2. The State Govt. has smartly washed its hands off by again recommending the matter to Central Govt. Through latest letter No. MVR-0902/CR-46-A/D-2(4)/ON-19665 dt. 1/8/07, Maharashtra Transport Commissioner has again recommended with 6 specific disabled persons’ cases ( including myself ) for Exemption for alteration / prototype approval to Joint Secretary, Govt. of India.
3. Through my last letter cum RTI application dt. 10/9/07, I have conveyed to your good selves about latest harassment tool being used by Ministry through proposing for Impossible Retro fitment Kit Approval System instead of restoring the prevalent procedure, which is time tested, simple, safe, viable, etc. Copy of letter No. RT-11016/5/2007-MVL dated 22/8/07 was attached with my said letter.
4. The proposed Kit Approval System is decided with total disregard to ground realities, without involving any proper representation & experts, without any supporting data or statistics to question safety, etc. I have contested this in detail to the concerned Jt. Sect. Through my appeal dt. 7/9/07. Copy of this is again attached herewith for ready reference.
5. The stalemate & inaction over long period is evident from documents supplied.
6. The Dept. of Road Transport & Highways ’s action & inaction not only violates constitutional provisions of welfare state & protection of rights of underprivileged class, but also is in gross violation of Chapter VIII ( Non Discrimination), etc. of The Persons With Disabilities ( Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights & Full Participation ) Act, 1995. Further, clear breach of Articles 4, 9, 20 & 26 of United Nations’ Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities is being done. For this necessary penalties / fines may be imposed on responsible / erring officials.

I feel now considering you Notice The Dept. of Road Transport & Highways may inform / submit about early resolution of the matter as it is awaiting approval of DGHS. Please treat this rejoinder application as caveat, as the proposal finalized by Ministry will not resolve the problem since complicated Kit Approval System will neither be commercially nor geographically viable for disabled spread across small towns & villages. Apart from my letter dt. 7/9/07 to Jt. Sect. I am also writing to Director, ARAI, Pune ( A Govt. of India Enterprise) who have drafted the proposed improper system, copy of this letter is also attached for reference in this matter.

Thanking you in anticipation of early & favourable action.
Yours,


( Jagdish N. Motwani )

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Recorded Delivery
Jagdish N. Motwani
1/34, Darshan CHS. SHIVDHAM Complex, Dindoshi, Mumbai-400097.
Email- jmotwani@vsnl.net
Tel. 28497204./9869450565.
26th Sep. 2007
The Director,
The Automotive Research Association of India ( ARAI),
S. No. 102, Vetal Hill, Off Paud Road,
Kothrud, Pune- 411038.

Respected Sir,
Re.- Information about proposed Retro fitment Kit Approval System for Invalid Carriages / vehicles used by disabled.

At the outset this acknowledges with thanks for your letter No. ARAI/APX/CMVR-CORR/06-07/172 dt. 16/11/06.
ARAI is fully aware about the difficulties being faced by disabled riders / drivers in registration of INVALID CARRIAGE ( I/C ) in few states like Kerala & Maharashtra. Now, through Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport & Highways ( MOSRT&H ), I am informed about your new proposals, which were finalized during meeting at ARAI, Pune on 28/5/07 & subsequently presented during meeting of CMVR-TSC on 11/6/07.

Now, considering decisions at your meeting of 28/5/07, kindly inform me about the following key issues;
1. Basis of calling participants for this meeting i.e. like,
· Why only Maharashtra TC/RTO representatives were invited when even Kerala RTO/TC is similarly harassing the disabled.
· Why from SIAM only Tata Motors & Bajaj Auto were represented ( who do not manufacture widely used Auto-transmission cars / scooters used by disabled) instead of Maruti / Hyndai & Honda / Kinetic(Pune).
· The involvement of both Doctors in disability evaluation / treatment / rehabilitation / certification is not known as they apparently are neither from Govt. Hospital nor are Orthopedic Surgeons.
· Why representatives of few other modification / fitment ( Kit ) manufacturers like Cozy, Ferro-Equip, etc were not invited for broader representation.
· When Safety aspects were to be deliberated then why ultimate losers i.e. Insurers’ representation was not sought.
· Why no representatives from Disability Welfare NGOs’ or Govt. Dept.s’ / Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment were not invited. Incidentally the State Disability Commissioner’s Office is at Pune itself. ( Pl. note that only wearer knows where the shoe pinches the most ).
2. Whether any Study / Research / Field-test was done for making these proposals ? If yes, then details of the same may be provided.
3. Whether ARAI or MOSRT&H has collected any Data / Statistics / Records about the usage, accident-records, vehicle failure cases, etc. for I/C ?
4. On what basis you have concluded that sidecar fitment is lower safety option, when world over Insurers offer substantial discounts in premium for attachment of sidecar to two wheeler. The insurers have better insight for accidental damage & TPPI / TPPD liability claims.
5. Please not that sidecar fitment is a good old time tested option for disabled & it is only in last decade the 2 side wheels option is available. Further, in most cases the sidecar is more functional to disabled as their crutches, bag, rain-coat, etc can be conveniently kept in sidecar.
6. Has any advises from Ministry of Health or Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment been sought for restricting disability up to 25% . Your recommendations about nature of disability are contradictory to the same. As per Govt. & Orthopedic Association guidelines mere disability of one leg will result in above 25% Disability.
7. What is the meaning of “ Model ( Vehicle ) specific approval will be given “ ?
8. Approximate expenses & time involved in your proposed Kit Approval System ?
9. Whether any such Kit Manufacturers spread across entire India are identified ? If no, then on what basis viability of the procedure is determined ?
10. Whether any incentives or tax rebates are proposed for such Kit fitment ?
11. Why existing & smoothly functioning simple procedure as enlisted in your letter dt. 16/11/06 & also recommended by VRDE, Ahmednagar ( letter dt. 20/2/07 ) & CIRT, Pune ( letter dt. 13/3/07 ) is being dispensed with, without any adverse records / data. Copies of these 3 letters are enclosed herewith for your ready reference.
12. Whether any similar Prototype Approval System exists or is proposed for fabrication / fitment of Load / Passenger- Body, Tank, Cabin, etc. for Trucks, Buses, Tankers, etc.? Specially as, Telco, Ashok-Leyland, etc. only supply Engine & Chassis Assembly for such Commercial Vehicles & adverse accident records ( & low safety ) of these vehicles is in public domain.

Sir, kindly understand that due to erroneous amendment to Sec. 52 of M.V. Act & subsequent wrong interpretation of Sec. 2(18), the disabled are being harassed for last 5 years. Surprisingly, the culprits i.e. MOSRT&H & TCs’ have not initiated any action for first 4 years & now through you they are ensuring such continued harassment. Please note that such complicated Kit Approval System will neither be commercially nor geographically viable for disabled spread across small towns & villages. The established procedure of Registration based on Medical Evaluation & RTO inspector’s inspection / examination of vehicle & rider / driver can be improvised by giving internal viable guidelines to RTOs’ like about Reflective Tapes, Disability Sign Sticker, etc. Sir, let us not degrade / question the proficiency of Motor Vehicle Inspector in RTO about judging safety & suitability for registering I/C, as this has worked well for last several decades.

On this issue, I have already requested for your intervention / response through my emails dt. 12/9/07, 19/9/07 & 23/9/07 ( send at urdhwareshe.apx@araiindia.com & director@araiindia.com ). Now considering long stalemate & need for urgent corrective action, I am constrained in making this letter as Application under RTI Act. As required P.O. of Rs. 10/- towards fees payable is enclosed herewith. The applied information / records may be kindly posted / couriered to me.
Thanking you in anticipation & apologizing for the inconvenience caused.
Yours,


( Jagdish N. Motwani )
Enclosed- Above said letters & P.O. of Rs. 10/-.[/quote]

Dear Friends
Half battle won, pl. see Govt. circular at following link
https://docs.google.com/a/motwani.info/file/d/0B_wUSdQOUQP4Y1RkcGhWTHZTRGM/edit
Other half we will win through NHRC.
Regards

[quote="JAGDISHNM"]HI FRIENDS,
LATEST DEVELOPEMENTS POSTED HEREWITH.
FRIENDS APART FROM CALLING OR SENDING PERSONAL EMAILS FOR YOUR SIMILLAR PROBLEM, PL. ALSO SEND YOUR REPRESENTATION TO CONCERNED AUTHORITIES / DEPT.S'.
WITH REGARDS

_______________COPY__________________________

Jagdish N. Motwani
1/34, Darshan CHS. SHIVDHAM Complex, Dindoshi, Mumbai-400097.
Email- jmotwani@vsnl.net
Tel. 28497204./9869450565.
10th Sep. 2007
NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
Faridkot House, Copernicus Marg,
New Delhi-110001.
Kind Attention- Mr. R. Nihal Pedric, Asstt. Registrar (Law),
Ms. S. Manjula, PIO
Respected Sirs,
Re. – Rejoinder Application to Case No. 1733/13/2006-2007/OC
A/C - Blanket Ban on Registration of Vehicles used by Disabled from 2003.

This acknowledges with thanks for receipt of your letter No. 16(1)/PIO/2005(RTI)/743 dt. 21/9/07 in response to my last detailed letter dt. 10/9/07. After perusing the contents of your letters dt. 6/9/07 to concerned Secretaries of State & Central Govt.s’ , I wish to highlight the following key issues;
1. This problem is not unique to myself & not just restricted to Maharashtra, but several disabled are suffering. Details of few live cases are given through 4 different web-links.
2. The State Govt. has smartly washed its hands off by again recommending the matter to Central Govt. Through latest letter No. MVR-0902/CR-46-A/D-2(4)/ON-19665 dt. 1/8/07, Maharashtra Transport Commissioner has again recommended with 6 specific disabled persons’ cases ( including myself ) for Exemption for alteration / prototype approval to Joint Secretary, Govt. of India.
3. Through my last letter cum RTI application dt. 10/9/07, I have conveyed to your good selves about latest harassment tool being used by Ministry through proposing for Impossible Retro fitment Kit Approval System instead of restoring the prevalent procedure, which is time tested, simple, safe, viable, etc. Copy of letter No. RT-11016/5/2007-MVL dated 22/8/07 was attached with my said letter.
4. The proposed Kit Approval System is decided with total disregard to ground realities, without involving any proper representation & experts, without any supporting data or statistics to question safety, etc. I have contested this in detail to the concerned Jt. Sect. Through my appeal dt. 7/9/07. Copy of this is again attached herewith for ready reference.
5. The stalemate & inaction over long period is evident from documents supplied.
6. The Dept. of Road Transport & Highways ’s action & inaction not only violates constitutional provisions of welfare state & protection of rights of underprivileged class, but also is in gross violation of Chapter VIII ( Non Discrimination), etc. of The Persons With Disabilities ( Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights & Full Participation ) Act, 1995. Further, clear breach of Articles 4, 9, 20 & 26 of United Nations’ Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities is being done. For this necessary penalties / fines may be imposed on responsible / erring officials.

I feel now considering you Notice The Dept. of Road Transport & Highways may inform / submit about early resolution of the matter as it is awaiting approval of DGHS. Please treat this rejoinder application as caveat, as the proposal finalized by Ministry will not resolve the problem since complicated Kit Approval System will neither be commercially nor geographically viable for disabled spread across small towns & villages. Apart from my letter dt. 7/9/07 to Jt. Sect. I am also writing to Director, ARAI, Pune ( A Govt. of India Enterprise) who have drafted the proposed improper system, copy of this letter is also attached for reference in this matter.

Thanking you in anticipation of early & favourable action.
Yours,


( Jagdish N. Motwani )

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Recorded Delivery
Jagdish N. Motwani
1/34, Darshan CHS. SHIVDHAM Complex, Dindoshi, Mumbai-400097.
Email- jmotwani@vsnl.net
Tel. 28497204./9869450565.
26th Sep. 2007
The Director,
The Automotive Research Association of India ( ARAI),
S. No. 102, Vetal Hill, Off Paud Road,
Kothrud, Pune- 411038.

Respected Sir,
Re.- Information about proposed Retro fitment Kit Approval System for Invalid Carriages / vehicles used by disabled.

At the outset this acknowledges with thanks for your letter No. ARAI/APX/CMVR-CORR/06-07/172 dt. 16/11/06.
ARAI is fully aware about the difficulties being faced by disabled riders / drivers in registration of INVALID CARRIAGE ( I/C ) in few states like Kerala & Maharashtra. Now, through Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport & Highways ( MOSRT&H ), I am informed about your new proposals, which were finalized during meeting at ARAI, Pune on 28/5/07 & subsequently presented during meeting of CMVR-TSC on 11/6/07.

Now, considering decisions at your meeting of 28/5/07, kindly inform me about the following key issues;
1. Basis of calling participants for this meeting i.e. like,
· Why only Maharashtra TC/RTO representatives were invited when even Kerala RTO/TC is similarly harassing the disabled.
· Why from SIAM only Tata Motors & Bajaj Auto were represented ( who do not manufacture widely used Auto-transmission cars / scooters used by disabled) instead of Maruti / Hyndai & Honda / Kinetic(Pune).
· The involvement of both Doctors in disability evaluation / treatment / rehabilitation / certification is not known as they apparently are neither from Govt. Hospital nor are Orthopedic Surgeons.
· Why representatives of few other modification / fitment ( Kit ) manufacturers like Cozy, Ferro-Equip, etc were not invited for broader representation.
· When Safety aspects were to be deliberated then why ultimate losers i.e. Insurers’ representation was not sought.
· Why no representatives from Disability Welfare NGOs’ or Govt. Dept.s’ / Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment were not invited. Incidentally the State Disability Commissioner’s Office is at Pune itself. ( Pl. note that only wearer knows where the shoe pinches the most ).
2. Whether any Study / Research / Field-test was done for making these proposals ? If yes, then details of the same may be provided.
3. Whether ARAI or MOSRT&H has collected any Data / Statistics / Records about the usage, accident-records, vehicle failure cases, etc. for I/C ?
4. On what basis you have concluded that sidecar fitment is lower safety option, when world over Insurers offer substantial discounts in premium for attachment of sidecar to two wheeler. The insurers have better insight for accidental damage & TPPI / TPPD liability claims.
5. Please not that sidecar fitment is a good old time tested option for disabled & it is only in last decade the 2 side wheels option is available. Further, in most cases the sidecar is more functional to disabled as their crutches, bag, rain-coat, etc can be conveniently kept in sidecar.
6. Has any advises from Ministry of Health or Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment been sought for restricting disability up to 25% . Your recommendations about nature of disability are contradictory to the same. As per Govt. & Orthopedic Association guidelines mere disability of one leg will result in above 25% Disability.
7. What is the meaning of “ Model ( Vehicle ) specific approval will be given “ ?
8. Approximate expenses & time involved in your proposed Kit Approval System ?
9. Whether any such Kit Manufacturers spread across entire India are identified ? If no, then on what basis viability of the procedure is determined ?
10. Whether any incentives or tax rebates are proposed for such Kit fitment ?
11. Why existing & smoothly functioning simple procedure as enlisted in your letter dt. 16/11/06 & also recommended by VRDE, Ahmednagar ( letter dt. 20/2/07 ) & CIRT, Pune ( letter dt. 13/3/07 ) is being dispensed with, without any adverse records / data. Copies of these 3 letters are enclosed herewith for your ready reference.
12. Whether any similar Prototype Approval System exists or is proposed for fabrication / fitment of Load / Passenger- Body, Tank, Cabin, etc. for Trucks, Buses, Tankers, etc.? Specially as, Telco, Ashok-Leyland, etc. only supply Engine & Chassis Assembly for such Commercial Vehicles & adverse accident records ( & low safety ) of these vehicles is in public domain.

Sir, kindly understand that due to erroneous amendment to Sec. 52 of M.V. Act & subsequent wrong interpretation of Sec. 2(18), the disabled are being harassed for last 5 years. Surprisingly, the culprits i.e. MOSRT&H & TCs’ have not initiated any action for first 4 years & now through you they are ensuring such continued harassment. Please note that such complicated Kit Approval System will neither be commercially nor geographically viable for disabled spread across small towns & villages. The established procedure of Registration based on Medical Evaluation & RTO inspector’s inspection / examination of vehicle & rider / driver can be improvised by giving internal viable guidelines to RTOs’ like about Reflective Tapes, Disability Sign Sticker, etc. Sir, let us not degrade / question the proficiency of Motor Vehicle Inspector in RTO about judging safety & suitability for registering I/C, as this has worked well for last several decades.

On this issue, I have already requested for your intervention / response through my emails dt. 12/9/07, 19/9/07 & 23/9/07 ( send at urdhwareshe.apx@araiindia.com & director@araiindia.com ). Now considering long stalemate & need for urgent corrective action, I am constrained in making this letter as Application under RTI Act. As required P.O. of Rs. 10/- towards fees payable is enclosed herewith. The applied information / records may be kindly posted / couriered to me.
Thanking you in anticipation & apologizing for the inconvenience caused.
Yours,


( Jagdish N. Motwani )
Enclosed- Above said letters & P.O. of Rs. 10/-.[/quote]