Tour operator service requires tourist vehicles; ordinary buses not meeting statutory specifications cannot be so classified.

Liability as a tour operator depended on the vehicles qualifying as tourist vehicles under the Motor Vehicles Act and the relevant rules. The buses in question were ordinary contract carriage or stage carriage buses, and there was no evidence that they were constructed, adapted, equipped, or maintained to meet the statutory specifications for tourist vehicles. In the absence of proof that the vehicles satisfied that legal description, the activity could not be classified as tour operator service, and the respondent was not liable on that basis.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent's buses could be treated as tourist vehicles so as to fall within the service of a tour operator.

Analysis: Liability as a tour operator depended on the vehicles being tourist vehicles within the meaning of the Motor Vehicles Act and the prescribed rules. The record showed that the buses were ordinary buses operating as contract carriage or stage carriage, and there was no evidence that they were constructed, adapted, equipped, or maintained in accordance with the specifications applicable to tourist vehicles. In the absence of proof that the vehicles satisfied the statutory description of tourist vehicles, the service could not be classified as tour operator service.

Conclusion: The respondent was not liable to be treated as providing tour operator service.

---