SERVICE CAR LICENSE

Hokitika Guardian, 24 January 1933, Page 8

SERVICE CAR LICENSE

COMPANY’S APPEAL UPHELD

POWERS OF THE AUTHORITY

ROTORUA, January 20

Judgment i.i connection wtih an appeal by the Iv Motor Service, Limited, against the granting of a licence to 'Newby’s Motors, Limited, opeiating between Hamilton and Rotorua, has been given by the Transport Appeal Hoard..

In delivering jm.gment th ( , chairman of the 'board, Mr Just.ce Frazer, said there did not iseem to be the slightest doubt that the dispute wa* not so .much b e t-ween the K Motor Service and Newby’s Service a.s ‘between the White Star and Aard organisation. It was a fisrht between the two organisations to have a link between Rotorua and Hamilton, and th e hoard had to decide whether there wa, s room for an extra service

on the route. ■ '•From the figures submitted, it docs not appear there is room for an extra •Service,” the judgment continued. “Me have pretty complete figures now and .it certainly seems that two cars ought to be able’to carry; the passengers ofifer.

OATEBINO FOR PA^TyvnEiRS. “Th e matter chiefly investigated by the No. 3 Licensing Authority, ard the matter that bars been largely brought before us. has been a complaint that, the K Motor Service has not run 'in accordance with its licence. It is stiong !y suggested that the K Motor Service, although authorised to run two cars, frequently ran only one, and ti.rne away p-wengirs who wei> willing to book. Tho.r ( .. is evidence to substantiate the suggestion that, the K Motor Service ji-een running very eeooomica'iy. That k to say,' the company -would not put on two cars unless it had somo.thing like two car-loads. It would not put on t,wo cars if t-her were only one or two additional passengers. This is ;1 matter which should have been dealt with by the No. 3 Licencing Authority under section 36 of the Act. The authority was r inno we red lvsection 36 to ,hold ;a. public inquiry and to summon before ft any alleged offenc. er and deal with him. The Iv Motor Service had authority to run two car,, when it was impossible to carry all th e passengers offering in one car. The No. 3 Licensing Authority had full pow-sr under section 36 to deal drastically with an operator, against whom a breach of that Act was proved. It could take away hi* licence altogether. If the. No. 3 Authority had held a public inquiry and had dealt with the Iv Motor .Service and had taken away the K Motor Service licence, then it would lrave been qVte in order .for it to consider an application bv Newby’s Motors. Limited, for a licence for the Rotorua-HamiUon route. It did not do so.

TWO SERVICES' UNNECESSARY. “It appear* that tho No. 3 Authority has accepted the evidence that the K Alot'r Servicp has not run its two -cars', as it should have done', and when it ishould have done, as a reason for, era*ting' the licence, to a service which,n on the figures, appear* to bo unnecessary," sir'd the judgment. “Th's js not a, function -of the No. 3 Authority. Pls rot supposed to licence move services ,th,an ar P .necessary and desirable 111 tho public interests, and just because the K Motor Service committed a breach of jt.s licence by not running two cam. when it should -have done. it appears to have granted an unnecessary licence to Newby* Motors, L'mited, when the granting of such a licence does not- apnenr to have b ( en in the public interest, The public interest would have been served by keeping the K Motor Service „p to the mark, by fining or penalising it, or by cancelling Us licence altovet her nrd granting a new licence to Newby’s .Motors. It ,seems quite- jvrong, for the No. 3 Licensing Authority to give two separate licences to two firms, when there is only sufficient traffic for one licence." The appeal \va,c allowed accordingly to appellant' with costs.