A resident of Jammu and Kashmir reportedly found himself on the wrong side of the law for modifying his Mahindra Thar and was sentenced to six months in prison. The modifications he is said to have made to his vehicle include a hard top, bigger wheel and tyres as well as a high car siren. It is therefore important to examine to what extent a consumer can make modifications to his car. This is crucial because making modifications may invite legal proceedings.
Consumers are forced to make alterations because manufacturers spread features across different variants which may be out of their reach while initially purchasing the car. For example, a base variant of a car may have smaller tyres than the higher variant or may not have a touchscreen system which has the feature of Apple CarPlay and Android Auto which are arguably necessary in 2022. Thus, a consumer who cannot afford the highest variant may buy the lower variant and later, as money becomes available goes and adds these features to his car. Perhaps this is why automakers like BMW have decide to switch to a subscription model which involves them inputting the required hardware required and making it subscription based, so you can buy the car but activate other features later.
Accessories not exceeding two percent of the vehicle’s weight specified in the certificate of registration are permissible in India. However, alterations which change the basic structure of the car so as to alter its basic features have been made illegal in India by virtue of Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 which was later amended in 2000 and again recently in 2019.
This article seeks to examine the scope and ambit of Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the permissible limits of vehicle alteration in India.
An examination of the ingredients of Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 informs us that:
- No owner of a motor vehicle can alter the vehicle at variance with the particulars contained in the certificate of registration specified by the manufacturer.
- The engine or any part of it can be modified or changed to ensure that it is run by a different fuel or battery or liquified petroleum gas or any other source of energy by fitting a conversion kit. The Central Government can prescribe specifications, conditions, conditions of approval, retro fitment and other related matters for such conversion kits and the modifications must comply with these conditions.
- The Central Government can prescribe specifications, conditions for approval, retrofitment and other related matters for the alteration of motor vehicles and in such case, the warranty granted by the manufacturer will not be considered void for the purposes of such alteration or retrofitment.
- A person can obtain subsequent approval of the registering authority for alterations and convert his vehicle into an adapted vehicle which must comply with the conditions prescribed by the central government.
- Alterations made without prior approval of the registering authority must be brought to its notice within fourteen days of making the alteration. The certificate of registration along with fee has to be provided.
- The Central Government can exempt alterations of vehicles in a manner otherwise than the specified manner for any specific purpose.
- If an alteration has been made without the prior approval of the RTO, then the owner of the vehicle must report the alteration to the RTO within 14 days of making the alteration along with the certificate of registration and the prescribed fee.
An alteration is explained in the Section as meaning a change in the structure of the vehicle resulting in a change in its basic feature.
The punishment for alterations is found in Section 182-A of the Act. According to Section 182-A(1) if a manufacturer, importer or dealer makes or offers to alterations which violate chapter VII of the Act or rules and regulations; the punishment will be a maximum of one year in jail or with a fine of one lakh rupees per the vehicle or both.
Further, Section 182-A(4) provides that owners altering their vehicles, including by way of retrofitting motor vehicle parts in an impermissible way faces up to six months in jail or with a fine of up to Rs 5,000 per such alteration or with both. Therefore, it is not only the owner of a vehicle who faces liability but even a manufacturer or dealer.
A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India dealt with the interpretation of Section 52 of the Act of 1988 and examined the extent of permissible alterations in the case of Regional Transport Officer v K Jayachandra (2019). The kind of alterations which were being examined involved changes to the chassis of the vehicle, thereby actually changing the structure of the vehicle.
In its examination of the provisions of the Act, the court took note of the objects and reasons of the amendment made to the provision by Parliament in 2000, according to which changes made were necessary to ensure the safety of road users by prohibiting alterations of any kind including change of tyres of higher capacity.
The crux of the judgment is that while the RTO does not need to be burdened for every minor alteration such as fitting accessories, if there is any change in the structure which will be considered as altering its “basic structure” and is at variance with the particulars of registration then these alterations are illegal. The increase in tyre size has sought to be made illegal in view of safety concerns by the legislature and this has been recognised and affirmed by the Supreme Court.
However, after this judgment, in the same year, the Kerala high court had occasion to deal with an individual who made an application for converting a Force Traveller ambulance into a Hearse Ambulance in Jeffin Abraham v Joint Regional Transport Officer (2019). While the application was rejected, several structural alterations were made to the van came to light. While dealing with this, the court had occasion to interpret Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The court also observed that the Ministry of Road and Highway’s has issued a clarificatory communication in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court.
In essence what the ministry said is that changes cannot be made to the certificate of registration except to the extent of the entries made in the same as per the specifications of the manufacturer. The most crucial clarification for our purposes is:
“A motor vehicle, modified by incorporating optional components offered by its manufacturer or otherwise modified so that it continues to comply with the manufacturer’s specifications, may not require further certification. In the said communication, the Ministry has prescribed that the modifications that can be carried out by the vehicle owner and would not entail further certifications are:
(a) Replacement of parts or components by identical parts or components.
(b) Replacement parts or components with parts or components with equivalent functional performance.
(c) Optional parts or components as prescribed by the vehicle’s manufacturer.”
This clarification creates a situation wherein a consumer who buys a car and increases its tyre size by purchasing from dedicated tyre shop will violate the law, whereas a consumer who goes to the dealer, who is essentially an extension of the manufacturer may not. Similarly, a consumer who buys LED tail lights from a third party instead of the dealer will also be liable under the law. This distinction which has been created is perverse since the object of the 2000 amendment was ostensibly a safety concern. Many manufacturers or dealers offer tyre upsizing either as accessories or upgrades. If Section 182-A (1) bars a manufacturer or dealer from making alterations which violate the Act and its rules and the intendment of the 2000 legislation was against tyre upsizing, then we must ask ourselves whether these can in fact be provided legally as accessories or upgrades.
There is also ambiguity as to what “continues to comply with the manufacturer’s specifications” means. Many consumers make alterations such as changing the headlights to better quality, some upgrade the tail lights; these are third party accessories. Further it can be argued that headlight and tail lights are ‘basic features’ of the cars even though there is no structural change in the vehicle. Pressure horns being installed are reportedly leading to costly fines being issued by the traffic police, but what if the consumer purchases the horn which is a genuine accessory provided by the manufacturer?
Since the increase in tyre size found unfavourable mention not only in the objects and reasons for the 2000 amendment but a judgment of the Supreme Court and Kerala high court, the argument that as long as a consumer chooses a higher tyre size which is specified by the manufacturer, it is permissible would not hold much water. Further using the word “may” creates further confusion as it is not necessary that compliance with the conditions of the communication would require no registration.
In view of these judgments, it will be useful to examine what kind of modifications are being currently offered by third party shops in the market:
- Tyres
- Clutch overhaul
- ECU/ TCU Tuning
- Suspension
- Brake upgrades.
- Customised exhaust systems
- Exterior customisation
- Automation and hydraulics.
These are just some of the publicly available modifications of which all of which fall foul of Section 52 of the Act as they would change the vehicle from what was created by the manufacturer and specified in the certificate of registration. These modifications arguably alter the basic features of the vehicle. Further, in case a consumer wants to make these modifications he will mandatorily have to inform and seek consent of the jurisdictional RTO.
In view of the above let us examine some illustrative situations which may arise when a consumer wishes to make some modifications to his vehicle:
1. A consumer purchases a car and does not like the seat covers. There are no side and curtain airbags: The change of seat covers will not result in any change to the structure or basic features of the car and therefore is acceptable.
2. A consumer purchases a lower variant of a car which comes with 15-inch tyres. The higher variant of the car comes with 17-inch tyres. The consumer can approach the authorised dealer for upsizing the tyres, however upsizing the tyres outside the purview of the manufacturer is a grey area in view of the judgments of the courts and the clarification of the Ministry. There will be no problem in upgrading to a better brands tyre which are the same size as the tyres the car came with. This is because the tyre size and specifications has to be provided by the manufacturer when furnishing information to the registering authority.
3. The consumer goes to a performance enhancement company and increase the horsepower of the engine and changes the tune of the engine or modifies the brakes or suspension of the car. This is illegal and impermissible since it would be at variance with the particulars furnished by the manufacturer while registering the vehicle which includes the power output of the engine.
4. A consumer changes the stock headlights and tail lights by approaching a third party. He replaces the ones originally provided by the manufacturer. For instance, the consumer installs projector headlights which are not provided by the manufacturer on any variant of the car. This is again a grey area, since if there is no change in wiring and the item is plug and play and only improves the car and does not violate any provisions of the motor vehicle Act, this should fall within the definition of an accessory and should be permissible. However, as seen in the case of the Thar owner in Jammu and Kashmir, LED tail lights were not spared.
5. A consumer purchases a lower end variant of a car and later installs a touchscreen system which has wireless Apple Carplay and Android Auto. This will be an accessory and will not require registration.
6. A consumer wants to change the colour of the paint in his car. He will have to seek approval from the RTO for this as it will be at variance with the certificate of registration.
7. A consumer wants to make alterations to the body of the car by installing body kits, and changing the appearance of the bumpers. This is impermissible and if such alterations are sought to be made, approval of the RTO must be sought.
The real problem is with alterations which make the car unsafe and put others at risk such as massive metal bumper guards which have been made illegal. There is also a genuine interest of the manufacturer and dealer to ensure quality control and the safety of its cars; therefore, third party accessories can complicate matters and modifications or alterations made to the car outside the dealership normally void the warranty which comes with the cars. For example, changing the wiring in a car can cause a short circuit and cause a fire. Modifications such as those made to allow differently abled persons for driving have in many cases required them to seek permission for altering their car, these are decided on a case-to-case basis.
The effect of the clarificatory communication of the Ministry of Road and Transport is that as long as you fit genuine accessories or fitments offered by the manufacturer, of which an authorised dealer is an extension, there should be no problem and you may not need to get your alteration registered. This will place a consumer who goes to a third party or independent shop for fitments or certain accessories at a disadvantage since whether or not his fitments and accessories conform to what is prescribed by the manufacturer will be up for interpretation of the authorities. Further after the amendment in 2019; if the Central Government approves certain alterations/ fitments then the same will not void the manufacturers warranty.
It would therefore stand to reason that if the specifications of the manufacturer are not tampered or interfered with, then it should not entail a violation of Section 52 of the Act and accompanying rules. The cumulative effect is that third party accessories or fitments are seen with a lens of suspicion as opposed to what is offered by the manufacturer or its authorised dealer which are typically more expensive and out of reach of many consumers.
In conclusion, modifications which do not pose safety hazards should be permissible; third-party accessory or fitments should not be banned in totality but examined on a case-case basis to see whether the alteration made is a safety hazard. The alterations the Supreme Court of India and the Kerala high court were concerned with were more to do with structural modifications. Therefore, the word “basic features” has to be read with structural modifications and not independently, and consequently accessories which have been expressly exempted by the law can be modified without seeking registration. The preference given to manufacturers and their dealers by, in a sense, exempting their accessories or modifications from the rigours of the law as opposed to third party accessory shops needs reconsideration and modifications to a vehicle should not matter as long as they do not constitute a safety hazard.
It would be beneficial for consumers if the Union government provides clarity of which accessories are exempted and permissible by way of a list. This would also inform consumers of which accessories will not void the manufacturers warranty. The endeavour must be to end any ambiguity surrounding modifications or alterations in vehicles considering it entails time in jail which can extend up to 6 months for the owner of the vehicle.
Raghav Tankha is a lawyer practising in Delhi. Views are personal.
