Madras HC seeks report on overcrowded buses, share autos

Turning its attention to overcrowded buses and share autorickshaws, the Madras high court has directed Tamil Nadu government to file a detailed reportTurning its attention to overcrowded buses and share autorickshaws, the Madras high court has directed Tamil N… Read More
CHENNAI: Turning its attention to overcrowded buses and share autorickshaws, the Madras high court has directed Tamil Nadu government to file a detailed report on the cases registered for such violations of Motor Vehicles Act. A division bench of Justice S Manikumar and Justice Subramonium Prasad passed the interim order on Tuesday on a PIL moved by M Chellappan of Erode.

According to the petitioner, as per the information received through an RTI reply from the additional transport commissioner, the maximum number of passengers permitted in a minibus is 25, and for regular mofussil buses it is 55. Similarly, only five people can be permitted to travel in a share auto, apart from the driver.

“Despite having knowledge of the statutory restrictions drivers of such vehicles are allowing double the permitted level in their vehicles. In share autorickshaws up to 10 passengers are carried,” Chellappan said. Claiming that such violations caused great risk to the driver when it comes to manoeuvring the vehicle in heavy traffic, the petitioner said, “This results in accidents which are extremely dangerous for two-wheelers and pedestrians.”

Pointing out that such restriction on number of passengers is imposed based on the engine and other capacity of the vehicles, the petitioner said that violation of such limit would cause more damage to the vehicle which would increase the maintenance cost. Overcrowding is the main reason for footboard travelling, the petitioner said, adding that overloading led to space constraints inside the bus which ultimately encouraged footboard travelling.

Submitting that he had made several representations to the authorities concerned , which included the one made on October 22, 2018, the petitioner said that he was constrained to approach the court as the officials failed to respond to his petitions.

[“source-timesofindia”]

Author: Ayaan