115-NLR-NLR-V-30-KATUGASTOTA-POLICE-INSPECTOR-v.-SIYADORIS-APPUHAMY.pdf
( 410 )
Present: Akbar J.
1929 KATUGASTOTA POLICE INSPECTOR v. SIYADORIS
APPUHAMY
177—P. C. Kandy, 27,731.
Motor Gar—Private car used ’for carrying passengers—Purpose notauthorized by the licence—Ordinance No. 20 of 1927, s. 30 (1).
Whore a motor car, licensed under form 14 in the thir^ scheduleof the Motor Car Ordinance, is-used for carrying passengers for hiresuch a use is a purpose not authorized by the licence within themeaning of section 30 (1) of the Ordinance.
A
PPEAL from a conviotion by the Police Magistrate'of Kandy.
The accused who held a licence for a car under form 14, the
third schedule of the Motor Car Ordinance, No. 20 of 1927, wascharged with plying the car for hire in breach of section 30 (1) of theOrdinance, and convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100. ■
Navaratnam, for accused, appellant.—The charge laid against theaccused is that he used his private car “for a purpose notauthorized by his motor car licence. ” The purpose indicated onthe face of the licence itself reads as follows : “ for wholly ormailny carrying passengers. ” No express prohibition against thecarrying of strangers in a private car, for hire, is to be •. found in the Ordinance. Apart from .-this, the prosecution mustfail, in view of the absence of proof of payment of hire or of anyagreement to pay a fee. The bare intention to pay something atthe end of the journey does not amount to a contract of hire andservice.
( 411)•
L. M. D.de Silva, Deputy Solicitor-General (with Pulle), for Crown,respondent.—To ascertain the purpose of a licence one must considerthe Ordinance as a whole. An examination of the interpretationsection and the various forms appearing in the third schedule makeit clear that licences are applied for and issued, subject to clearlydefine'd limitations. The purpose of a licence and the limitationssubject to which it is issued are well within the knowledge of alicence-holder. Thus there is good ground for the conclusion thatthe carriage of strangers, in the circumstances established by theevidence in the case, was for a purpose not authorized by thelicence. The accused has not given any explanation as to thepresence of strangers in his car, and has therefore failed to displacethe presumption that does necessarily arise against him.
1929
Katugasiota-
Police
Inspector
v.
Siyadoris
Appuhamy.
May 27, 1929. Akbar J.—
The accused in this case has been convicted of the offence ofplying a private car for hire in breach of section 30, sub-section (1),of the Motor Car Ordinance, No. 20 of 1927, an offence punishableunder section 84 of the Ordinance, and has been fined Rs. 100.
As I had some difficulty in construing the Ordinance, theDeputy Solicitor-General appeared on notice, and I am greatlyindebted to him for the help which he has given me. Under section30, sub-section (1), what is prohibited is the use of a motor car for apurpose not authorized by the licence. The forms of licence aregiven in the third schedule of the Ordinance. As there is nothing onthe face of the motor car licence in form No. 14 prohibiting the useof the car for carrying passengers on hire or for reward, I thoughtat first that there was a defect in the Ordinance. This, however,is not so. When the Ordinance is closely scrutinized it will be foundthat it differentiates between a “ private car ” and a “ hiring car.”
Section 2 of the Ordinance defines a “ hiring car ” as a motor carused for the conveyance of passengers for fee or reward. A“ motor cab ” is defined as a hiring car having seating accommoda-tion for not more than seven passengers. An “ omnibus ” isdefined as meaning a hiring car having seating accommodation formore than seven passengers. Chapter IX. of the Ordinance dealsexclusively with hiring cars and lorries. And “ lorry ” is definedin section 2 as meaning a motor car or trailor constructed whollyor mainly for carrying goods or hauling another vehicle.
Folms 10, 11, 12, and 13 refer to applications for licencesfor ordinary cars, for motor cabs, for omnibuses, and for lorriesrespectively. Further, under section 33, sub-section (3), no motorcar licence is to be issued unless a certificate of registration of the ■car is produced.
Form 2 gives the particulars which must be supplied by anapplicant for the registration of a motor car, and item 6 showsthat the purpose for which the car is to be used must be indicated,.
( 412 )
1029
Akbar J.
Kulugastota
Police
Inspector
v.
SiyadorU
Appuhamy
namely, whether it is for private use as a conveyance of persons,or for the conveyance of goods, or as a motor cab, or as a motoromnibus.
Form 3, i.e., the form of the certificate of registration, mustcontain a certified copy of the registered particulars mentioned inform 2. Again, in the first schedule we find the duties that arepayable on motor oar licences. There is here a clear distinctionbetween the duties payable for passenger cars other than hiringoars, and hiring cars (according to the number of passengers to hecarried) and lorries. Therefore, it is dear to me that the wholeOrdinance makes a distinction between private oars and hiring cars.As every person is presumed to know the law, the acoused shouldhave known if the lioence was in the form 14 of the third sohedulethat it was a lioenoe for private use, and that if it was in form15 it was for a hiring oar oarrying seven passengers or less. There*fore, under section 30, sub-section (1), if a motor car licensed underform 14 is used for carrying passengers on hire, it is a use of. themotor car for a purpose not authorized by the motor car lioence.The second point taken by the accused’s Counsel was that there wasno evidenoe to prove that this was a oar lioensed with a lioenoe inform 14. There is, however, the evidence of the police sergeantthat the aooused’s oar was a private oar. 1 think this is sufficientevidence whioh the aocused could have rebutted by the productionof the lioence in foroe, whioh he has not done. The third pointtaken by Mr. Navaratnam was that there was no evidenoe to provethat this oar was used on the oooasion for the conveyance ofpassengers for fee or reward. We have, however, the evidence ofone of the passengers, a man oalled Bodiya, who Btates that he cameto Katugastota to get medicine, that he saw the car ooming, thathe raised his hand and the car halted and that he got into the carand it started off at once. He further states that he meant to paythe aooused 50 oents, being the usual fare to the place to whioh he'was going, but before he oould get there the sergeant oame and ques-tioned him. I think that there is sufficient evidenoe to prove thatthis oar was being used for hiring purposes on the occasion inquestion. Bodiya stated further that there were two or three otherpassengers, one of whom was a Moor man according to anotherwitness. If a car stops on a stranger’s signal and takes him in atonce, the usual presumption is that it was being used for hiring pur-poses. The fact that no money was taken before the passengers gotin, in no way affects the presumption, because this waB not a bushaving a conductor on board. At any rate it was for the accusedto have rebutted this presumption. He has not given evidence,and I must, therefore, dismiss his appeal.
Affirmed.