The principal reason for this is the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, through its different incarnations. Problems of rationalization of motor vehicle taxation, the measly daily turnround of 275 to 300 km of goods carriages and the rampant overloading of trucks are all the consequence of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules made thereunder.
At the outset, it deserves to be noted that the interests of the State Governments vis-à-vis road transport services are poles apart from that of the Central Government, and most contentious of all is the issue of loading of goods carriages in excess of the limit prescribed under the Act.
Till 1988 the State Governments were free to assign gross vehicle weight (GVW) for trucks, and based on that, the desired tax was collected from the vehicles registered in the State.
In all other aspects, the utility and contribution of trucking services in the socio-economic development of the nation is of no consequence or concern for the State administrations. Admitted damage to roads, accidents or pollution caused by overloading of trucks as well were no matters of concern for them. The States made merry only with the trucks being milched for revenue and used like fodder by the swarm of corrupt enforcement officials on the highways.
“To fathom corruption entrenched in road freight transportation requires a scrutiny of the extent of money changing hands”, was the not-so-surprising observation of the Transparency International India in its report on “Corruption in trucking operations in India (October 2006)”.
The year 1988 changed the whole scenario. In its eagerness to catch up with practices abroad, or because of whatever other compulsions, it was decided to assign GVW to trucks based on maximum load-bearing capacity of all the axles of the vehicle put together. This deprived the States of their power to fix the GVW of the vehicle arbitrarily and the consequent rate of tax based on that.
To this unpleasant change the States have not been reconciled with till today. Therefore, they are virtually hostile to the enforcement of the anti-overloading provisions of Sections 19, 113, 114 or 199 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988. Indeed at a meeting of the Transport Development Council, representatives of some States said that off-loading of excess cargo, as provided in Section 114, was not feasible. This went uncontested by participants from other States or by the Central Road Transport Ministry. The Centre is vested with powers to only issue directives. It has no powers to get its laws enforced by the States.
It is claimed by the common carriers (transport companies/contractors), and rightly so, that 85 per cent of the entire cargo moved by road is handled by them. It is they who, on behalf of consignors, load the cargo on trucks to be moved from place to place at a hire charge fixed by them and not by truck owners. Indeed truck owners are not privy to the consignors so they are unable to negotiate freight charges or the quantum of cargo to be transported. All this is done by common carriers.
Taking advantage of the laxity in wordings in the Act, these people have successfully resisted being registered under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Centre, despite being repeatedly made aware of this deficiency, did not consider it necessary to suitably modify the provisions of Section 93 of the M.V. Act. Thus the common carriers, who actually cause loading of trucks, remain out of the discipline of the M.V. Act. and Rules made thereunder. Indeed vehicle owners who are victims of the illegal practice of overloading are showcased as perpetrators of overloading.
The State Governments were all along circumspecting the provisions of the Act of 1988 by issuing token / cards to legalize overloading for the sake of revenue. The enforcement officials on the other hand pronounced from house-tops that they detest vehicles operating within the legal load limits. They claim that they were given targets for collection and this could be achieved only by bargaining with overloaded trucks.
The practice of loading trucks excessively beyond the prescribed limit is rampant. Vehicle manufacturers and tyre makers, as if coming to the rescue of vehicle owners, are over-designing and over-building their products with impunity, and for that are charging their pound of flesh from vehicle owners. Type approving agencies appointed by the Centre as well are not fussy about it.
Not surprisingly, representing the community of consignors, the president of a national chamber of commerce has recently gone public to state that with restrictions enforced on overloading their product prices shall become costlier. Obviously they are also pro-overloading.
National highways account for a meagre two per cent of the country’s road network, but over 72 per cent of all inter-State cargo partly or fully moves on these highways. The National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) is levying toll in lieu of use of these assets. The rate of toll (i.e., road use charge), is significantly the same for those moving their vehicles empty or using roads by carrying legal loads as well as for those who are damaging the highways with excessively overloaded trucks. NHAI says it has no powers to prevent overloading.
In this backdrop it is long overdue that the Centre come forward with a road transport policy which is pragmatic, practical and realistic by incorporating the following points:
* Provision of restricting limit on Axle load may be removed from the M.V. Act, 1988
* The States may be empowered to fix GVW for vehicles registered in their jurisdiction and be allowed to charge tax accordingly.
* The GVW prescribed by any State shall be valid in all States for which the vehicle has a permit.
* All-India inter-State permits for goods carriages shall be issued by the home State at a rate of the fee fixed by the Centre.
* The scheme of type approval of commercial vehicles by the Government agencies like ARAI may be done away with. Vehicle manufacturers should vouch for the capacity and safety of vehicles and be liable for the same.
