M S Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co Ltd vs Rambha Devi Ors.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No. 841 of 2018

M/s BAJAJ ALLIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

RAMBHA DEVI & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

SLP(C) No. 10918 of 2018 SLP(C) No. 9604 of 2018 SLP(C) No. 9613 of 2018 Diary No. 24834 of 2018

Diary No. 25256 of 2018

SLP(C) No. 24671 of 2018

Diary No. 32753 of 2018

Diary No. 32756 of 2018 Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by Diary No. 37055 of 2018 SANJAY KUMAR Date: 2024.11.06 12:11:30 IST

Diary No. 39059 of 2018 Reason:

SLP(C) No. 426 of 2019 Page 1 of 126 SLP(C) Nos. 505-506 of 2019 SLP(C) No. 17506 of 2018

Diary No. 23638 of 2018

Diary No. 24137 of 2018

Diary No. 24530 of 2018

Diary No. 24534 of 2018

SLP(C) No. 5958 of 2019

SLP(C) Nos. 8918-8919 of 2019

SLP(C) Nos. 11503-11504 of 2019

SLP(C) No. 8277 of 2020

SLP(C) Nos. 8123-8124 of 2022

SLP(C) Nos. 14645-14646 of 2017

SLP(C) No. 35472-35473 of 2017

SLP(C) No. 6055 of 2018

SLP(C) No. 18849 of 2019

SLP(C) No. 20449 of 2019

SLP(C) Nos. 21547 of 2019

SLP(C) Nos. 23017-23018 of 2019

CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 8001-8002 of 2024

SLP(C) No. 766 of 2020

SLP(C) No. 24545 of 2019

SLP(C) Nos. 30601 of 2019

Page 2 of 126 SLP(C) No. 696 of 2021

CIVIL APPEAL No. 1477 of 2018

CIVIL APPEAL No. 842 of 2018

CIVIL APPEAL No. 1479 of 2018

CIVIL APPEAL No. 483 of 2018

CIVIL APPEAL No. 1506 of 2018

CIVIL APPEAL No. 1478 of 2018

Diary No. 40406 of 2017

CIVIL APPEAL No. 1476 of 2018

Diary No. 41949 of 2017

SLP(C) Nos. 2684-2685 of 2018

SLP(C) No. 597 of 2018

SLP(C) No. 524 of 2018

Diary No. 2524 of 2018

SLP(C) Nos. 19242-19244 of 2018

SLP(C) Nos. 19242-19244 of 2018

Diary No. 23636 of 2018

SLP(C) No. 28906 of 2018

SLP(C) No. 13315 of 2019

SLP(C) Nos. 14523-14524 of 2019

Diary No. 37270 of 2017 Page 3 of 126 CIVIL APPEAL No. 1475 of 2018

SLP(C) No. 5065 of 2018

SLP(C) No. 10459 of 2018

SLP(C) Nos. 9908 of 2018

SLP(C) No. 6668 of 2018

Diary No. 4869 of 2018

Diary No. 6119 of 2018

Diary No. 6264 of 2018

SLP(C) No. 8816 of 2018

SLP(C) No. 9607 of 2018

SLP(C) No. 9610 of 2018

SLP(C) No. 9612 of 2018

SLP(C) No. 9606 of 2018

SLP(C) No. 9609 of 2018

Diary No. 9963 of 2018

Diary No. 9970 of 2018

Diary No. 990 of 2018

SLP(C) No. 5193 of 2018

SLP(C) No. 5188 of 2018

SLP(C) No. 9611 of 2018 Page 4 of 126 SLP(C) No. 9608 of 2018

SLP(C) No. 9605 of 2018

SLP(C) No. 20221 of 2023

SLP(C) No. 19921 of 2023

SLP(C) No. 28961 of 2023

JUDGMENT

Hrishikesh Roy, J.

Title Page No. A. Background …6 B. Submissions on behalf of Insurance Companies …15 C. Submissions on behalf of Claimants …22 D. Issues …26 E. Discussion …27 (I) The Purpose of MV Act (II) Brief Overview of MV Act & MV Rules

(III) Construing Section 2(21),3 & 10 of MV Act (IV) Whether the interpretation in Mukund Dewangan(2017) renders most provisions of the MV Act & MV Rules otiose?

(a) Harmonious Construction

(b) Interpretation must not lead to impractical outcomes (V) Discussion on the 8 Conflicting judgments (VI) Is Mukund Dewangan(2017) per incuriam?

F. Impact on Road Safety …114 G. Conclusion …121

1. On the perception of the capability of drivers on the road, the

comedian George Carlin made the humorous observation to the

effect that: ‘Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than Page 5 of 126 you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?’1.

Concerns about road safety are often shaped by individual biases

without the opinion being founded on any empirical data. It is easy

to overlook the full spectrum of factors that contribute to road

safety. In this context, the pivotal legal issue that this Constitution

bench of five judges has to decide is whether under the existing

legal framework of the Motor Vehicle Act,1988 (for short “MV Act”)

and the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short, “MV Rules”),

a person holding a license for a ‘Light Motor Vehicle’ class, can

drive a ‘Transport Vehicle’ without a specific endorsement,

provided the ‘Gross Vehicle Weight’ of the vehicle does not exceed

7,500 kgs?. Besides road safety, the livelihood concern of a large

number of drivers of transport vehicles in India also requires an

answer from the bench. In this judgment, let us name our driver

Sri, who is a ‘Transport Vehicle’ driver. As can be appreciated, Sri

spends maximum hours behind the driving wheels and is arguably

the most experienced one amongst Indian drivers, carrying goods

and people, from destination A to B and so on.

1 George Carlin, ‘Carlin on Campus’ (HBO, 1984) <https://www.primevideo.com/detail/George-Carlin-Carlin-On- Campus/0ND548YT8ZBNFE9A56MJWHZ8PK> accessed 2 November 2024 Page 6 of 126 A. BACKGROUND

2. Before we set out the relevant provisions, a brief overview of

the legal journey that has led us to the above quest would be

appropriate. The vexed question was first noticed by a 2-judge

Bench of Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice Arun Mishra in

Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 2 (for short

“Mukund Dewangan(2016)”. It took note of the conflicting views in

8 different judgments of this Court and framed the following

questions for determination by a 3-judge bench:

“59.1. What is the meaning to be given to the definition of “light motor vehicle” as defined in Section 2(21) of the MV Act? Whether transport vehicles are excluded from it? 59.2. Whether “transport vehicle” and “omnibus” the “gross vehicle weight” of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg would be a “light motor vehicle” and also motor car or tractor or a roadroller, “unladen weight” of which does not exceed 7500 kg and holder of licence to drive class of “light motor vehicle” as provided in Section 10(2)(d) would be competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the “gross vehicle weight” of which does not exceed 7500 kg or a motor car or tractor or roadroller, the “unladen weight” of which does not exceed 7500 kg?

59.3. What is the effect of the amendment made by virtue of Act 54 of 1994 w.e.f. 14-11-1994 while substituting clauses

(e) to (h) of Section 10(2) which contained “medium goods vehicle”, “medium passenger motor vehicle”, “heavy goods vehicle” and “heavy passenger motor vehicle” by “transport vehicle”? Whether insertion of the expression “transport vehicle” under Section 10(2)(e) is related to the said

2 (2016) 4 SCC 298 Page 7 of 126 substituted classes only or it also excluded transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class from the purview of Sections 10(2)(d) and 2(41) of the Act?

59.4. What is the effect of amendment of Form 4 as to operation of the provisions contained in Section 10 as amended in the year 1994 and whether procedure to obtain driving licence for transport vehicle of class of “light motor vehicle” has been changed?”

3. Speaking through Justice Arun Mishra, the reference was

answered by a 3-Judge Bench of Justice Arun Mishra, Justice

Amitava Roy, and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul in Mukund

Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 3 (for short “Mukund

Dewangan(2017)”). The Bench concluded that the holder of a

license for a ‘Light Motor Vehicle’ class need not have a separate

endorsement to drive a ‘transport vehicle’ if it falls under the ‘Light

Motor Vehicle’ class i.e. below 7,500 kgs. The reference was

answered as under:

“60.1 ‘Light motor vehicle’ as defined in section 2(21) of the Act would include a transport vehicle as per the weight prescribed in section 2(21) read with section 2(15) and 2(48). Such transport vehicles are not excluded from the definition of the light motor vehicle by virtue of Amendment Act No.54/1994.

60.2. A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg. would be a light motor vehicle and also motor car or tractor or a road roller, ‘unladen weight’ of which does not exceed 7500 kg.

and holder of a driving licence to drive class of “light motor vehicle” as provided in section 10(2)(d) is competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg. or a motor car or tractor or

3 (2017) 14 SCC 663 Page 8 of 126 road-roller, the “unladen weight” of which does not exceed 7500 kg. That is to say, no separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class as enumerated above. A licence issued under section 10(2)(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54/1994 and 28.3.2001 in the form. 60.3. The effect of the amendment made by virtue of Act No.54/1994 w.e.f. 14.11.1994 while substituting clauses (e) to (h) of section 10(2) which contained “medium goods vehicle” in section 10(2)(e), medium passenger motor vehicle in section 10(2)(f), heavy goods vehicle in section 10(2)(g) and “heavy passenger motor vehicle” in section 10(2)(h) with expression ‘transport vehicle’ as substituted in section 10(2)(e) related only to the aforesaid substituted classes only. It does not exclude transport vehicle, from the purview of section 10(2)(d) and section 2(41) of the Act i.e. light motor vehicle.

60.4. The effect of amendment of Form 4 by insertion of “transport vehicle” is related only to the categories which were substituted in the year 1994 and the procedure to obtain driving licence for transport vehicle of class of “light motor vehicle” continues to be the same as it was and has not been changed and there is no requirement to obtain separate endorsement to drive transport vehicle, and if a driver is holding licence to drive light motor vehicle, he can drive transport vehicle of such class without any endorsement to that effect.” [emphasis supplied]

4. However, the above pronouncement did not put the matter to

rest. On 3.5.2018, a two-judge Bench comprising Justice Kurian

Joseph & Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar in M/s. Bajaj

Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi & Ors.4 noted

that while deciding the vexed question in Mukund Dewangan

(2017), the 3 Judge-bench had not considered important

4 (2019) 12 SCC 816 Page 9 of 126 provisions of the MV Act and MV Rules. The bench noted that the

following significant provisions were not placed before the Court in

Mukund Dewangan(2017):

“3. It is the submission of Shri Jayant Bhushan and Shri Joy Basu, learned Senior Counsel that certain distinct provisions pertaining specifically to transport vehicles have unfortunately not been brought to the notice of the Court:

1. Section 4(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) provides that the minimum age of holding a driving licence for a motor vehicle is 18 years.

Section 4(2) provides that no person under the age of 20 years shall drive a transport vehicle in a public place.

2. Section 7 provides that no person can be granted a learner's licence to drive a transport vehicle unless he has held a driving licence to drive a light motor vehicle for at least one year.

3. Section 14 deals with the currency of licence to drive motor vehicles. A driving licence issued or renewed under this Act, in case a licence to drive a transport vehicle will be effective for a period of three years. The proviso to Section 14(2)(a) provides that in case of a licence to drive a transport vehicle carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous nature, it shall be effective for a period of one year. However, in case of any other licence, it would be effective for a period of 20 years.

4. Rule 5 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”) makes a medical certificate issued by a registered medical practitioner mandatory in case of a transport vehicle, whereas for a non-transport vehicle, only a self-declaration is sufficient.

5. Rule 31, specifically sub-rules (2), (3) and (4) provide for a difference in the syllabus and duration of training between transport and non-transport vehicles. It is also submitted that in these provisions, there does not appear to be any exception carved out for transport vehicles which come in the light motor vehicle category.”

Page 10 of 126

5. Being a two-judge bench, the Court deemed it appropriate to

refer the prayer itself for reconsideration of the ratio in Mukund

Dewangan(2017) to a larger bench of three judges. Subsequently,

a three-Judge bench of Justice U.U. Lalit, Justice S. Ravindra

Bhat, and Justice P.S. Narasimha on 8.3.20225 noted that the

referral order rightly observed that certain provisions of the MV Act

and MV Rules were not noticed in Mukund Dewangan (2017). The

3-judge bench flagged certain additional provisions that were not

noticed in Mukund Dewangan(2017). Since such a view was

expressed by a Bench of equal strength, it was considered

appropriate to refer the matter to a larger bench of five judges. The

reference order reads as under:

“5. Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Mr. Gopal Sankaranaryanan, Mr. Siddhartha Dave, learned Senior Advocates as well as Mr. Amit Singh, Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, Mr. Kaustubh Shukla, Ms. Meenakshi Midha and Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gupta, learned Advocates, appearing for Insurance Companies have invited our attention to few other provisions, namely, the second proviso to Section 15 and Sections 180 and 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 apart from those mentioned in the referral order. It is submitted that though Section 3 was quoted in the decision in Mukund Dewangan (supra), the latter part of Section 3 and the effect thereof was not noticed by the Court. The latter part of said Section 3 stipulates that “no person shall so drive a transport vehicle other than the motor cab or motor cycle hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under any scheme made under sub-section (2) of Section 75 unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do.”

5 Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi, (2023) 4 SCC 723 Page 11 of 126

6. It is thus submitted that the provisions contemplate different regimes for those having licence to drive Light Motor Vehicles as against those licensed to drive Transport Vehicles.

7. Having bestowed our attention to the contentions raised by the learned counsel and the issues which fall for consideration, in our view, the referral order was right in stating that certain provisions were not noticed by this Court in its decision in Mukund Dewangan (supra). We are prima facie of the view that in terms of the referral order, the controversy in question needs to be re visited. Sitting in a combination of Three Judges, we deem it appropriate to refer the matters to a larger bench of more than Three Judges as the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India may deem appropriate to constitute”

6. For the benefit of the claimants, the reference order also

pertinently notes that:

“9. Before we part, we must note that all the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance companies have fairly submitted that the compensation in terms of the directions issued by the Courts below, that is to say, in following the principles laid down in Mukund Dewangan (supra) has either been paid in full or shall be paid in terms of such directions. Their statements are recorded.”

7. Thus, the correctness of Mukund Dewangan(2017) is to be

evaluated during this reference. At this juncture, we may note that

during the final stage of hearing before this Court on 20.7.2023, it

was brought to our notice that the Union Government had

accepted the decision in Mukund Dewangan(2017), by issuing

notifications dated 16.4.2018 and 31.3.2021. The Rules were also

amended to bring them in conformity with the said judgment.

Considering such compliance, we sought the assistance of the

learned Attorney General, Mr. R. Venkataramani and desired to Page 12 of 126 elicit the specific stand of the Union Government on the issue.

When the matter was next heard on 13.9.20236, the following order

was passed by this 5-judge bench:

“8. Mr. R Venkataramani, Attorney General for India, has appeared in response to the request of the Court and submitted a written note. The note submitted by the Attorney General indicates that:

(i) Application of the ratio in Mukund Dewangan (supra) enables a person holding a licence for a light motor vehicle to drive a transport vehicle on the strength of that licence without a separate transport vehicle licence; and

(ii) This interpretation of the provisions of the statute and the Rules in Mukund Dewangan (supra) does not appear to be in accord with the legislative intent.

9. The note also indicates that the letter dated 16 April 2018 was issued by the Union government taking note of the judgment in Mukund Dewangan (supra) as the law declared by this Court. Resultantly, the notification dated 31 March 2021 was issued to further amend the Rules to bring them in conformity with the judgment. However, the Attorney General has submitted that this may not be treated as a policy declaration by the Union Government and, as such, the letter and the notification may not have any bearing or conclusiveness on the state of law to be clarified.

10. At the same time, it has been submitted that the Union of India is open to the need, if any, to issue guidelines/regulations to address the perceived gaps in law as understood in the judgment of this Court in Mukund Dewangan (supra).

11. Apart from the specific submission of the Union Government during the course of hearing, that it is open to re-evaluate the position in law, we are of the considered view that it would be necessary for the Union Government to have a fresh look at the matter. We are inclined to take this view for the following reasons:

6

Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi, (2024) 1 SCC 818 Page 13 of 126

(i) Since the enactment of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, there has been a rapid evolution of the transport sector, particularly in the last few years with the emergence of new infrastructure and new arrangements for putting into place private transport arrangements;

(ii) Any interpretation or formulation of the law must duly take into account valid concerns of road safety bearing on the safety of users of public transport facilities;

(iii) Any change in the position of law as expressed in Mukund Dewangan (supra) would undoubtedly have an impact on persons who have obtained insurance relying on the law declared by this Court and who may be driving commercial vehicles with LMV licences. A large number of persons would be dependent on the sector for earning their livelihood; and

(iv) The decision in Mukund Dewangan (supra) has held the field for nearly six years and the impact of the reversal of the decision, at this stage, particularly on the social sector, is a facet which would have to be placed in balance by the policy arm of the Government.

12. The considerations which have been flagged above do not necessarily weigh in the same direction. However, all of them do raise important issues of policy which must be assessed and evaluated by the Union Government. Whether a change in the law is warranted is a matter which has to be determined by the Union Government after taking a considered decision bearing in mind the diverse considerations which fall within its remit in making policy choices and decisions.

13. Having regard to these features, we are of the view that the issue of interpretation which has been referred to the Constitution Bench by the referral order dated 8 March 2022 should await a careful evaluation of the policy considerations which may weigh with the Government in deciding as to whether the reversal of the decision as it obtains in Mukund Dewangan (supra) is warranted and, if so, the way forward that must be adopted bearing in mind the diverging interests, some of which have been noted in the earlier part of the order.

14. Hence, in view of the consequences which may arise by the reversal of the judgment in Mukund Dewangan Page 14 of 126 (supra), it would be appropriate if the entire matter is evaluated by the Government before this Court embarks upon the interpretative exercise. Once the Court is apprised of the considered view of the Union Government, the proceedings before the Constitution Bench can be taken up.

15. We request the Union Government to carry out this exercise within a period of two months.

16. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the referral order dated 8 March 2022 or on the correctness of the decision in Mukund Dewangan (supra) which would await further arguments once the considered view of the Union Government is placed before this Court.”

8. In view of the consultative exercise being carried out by the

government, the matter was deferred multiple times. On

16.4.2024, a note on the proposed set of amendments to the MV

Act was submitted before this Court. On 21.8.2024, the learned

Attorney General, R. Venkataramani had suggested that the

matter be either deferred till the amendments are tabled before

Parliament or the Court may conclude the pending hearing. We

then proceeded to hear the part-heard matter on 21.8.2024.

B. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF INSURANCE COMPANIES

9. We have heard Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General;

learned Senior Counsel Mr. Siddhartha Dave, Mr. Jayant

Bhushan; Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul,

learned Senior Counsel; Mr. Amit Kumar Singh and Mr. Shivam

Singh, Learned Counsel on behalf of the Insurance Companies.

Page 15 of 126 Mr. PB Suresh appeared as a supporting Intervenor for the ‘The

Society against Drunk Driving’.

9.1. Mr. Siddhartha Dave, learned Senior Counsel took us through

those provisions of the MV Act and MV Rules that create a

distinction between ‘Light Motor Vehicles’ and ‘Transport Vehicles’.

9.2. The Counsel drew the Court’s attention to Section 3 of the MV

Act which stipulates the ‘necessity for a driving license’ to drive a

motor vehicle. He referred to the second part of the provision

which states that ‘no person shall so drive a transport

vehicle…unless his driving license specifically entitles him so to do.’

It was contended that Mukund Dewangan (2017) overlooked that

there was a specific mention of ‘transport vehicle’ in Section 3

which would indicate that a license for a ‘light motor vehicle’

cannot be used for driving a ‘transport vehicle’.

9.3. Mr. Dave further argued that the eligibility for obtaining a

license for transport vehicles is more stringent than for Light Motor

Vehicles. Since transport vehicles are primarily utilized for

carrying passengers and goods, the additional requirements are

essential for ensuring road safety. Adverting to Section 4 of the

MV Act, which sets out the age limit, the Counsel highlighted that

the minimum age for securing a driving license for ‘motor vehicles’

Page 16 of 126 is 18 years but for driving ‘transport vehicles’, Section 4(2) provides

that the minimum age would be 20. Moreover, to qualify even for

a learner’s license to drive a ‘transport vehicle’, Section 7(1)

stipulates that a candidate must have held a driving license for a

‘Light Motor Vehicle’, for at least one year.

9.4. Section 8(3) mandates that an individual applying for a

learner’s license for a transport vehicle, must submit a medical

certificate from a registered medical practitioner, attesting to the

applicant’s physical fitness to operate a transport vehicle.

However, such a requirement is absent in the case of a Light Motor

Vehicle for which only a self-declaration is sufficient. Additionally,

the second proviso to Section 15 of MV Act stipulates that a medical

certificate is also necessary for the renewal of a driving license for

‘transport vehicles’. Section 9(4) requires that the applicant for a

‘transport vehicle’ license must possess a driving certificate from a

driving school or establishment. It was further submitted that the

1994 amendment to Section 10 merged four classes of (i) ‘medium

goods vehicle’, (ii) ‘medium passenger vehicle’, (iii) ‘heavy goods

vehicle’ and (iv) ‘heavy passenger vehicle’, into a single class of

‘transport vehicle’ under Section10(2)(e) of MV Act. Section 10(2)(d)

on the other hand provides for a separate class of ‘Light Motor

Vehicle’. Therefore, the retention of the separate classes of Page 17 of 126 ‘transport vehicle’ and ‘light motor vehicle’ under Section 10(2) by

the 1994 Amendment, implies that the two classes are not co-

equals, and the license holder of a ‘Light Motor Vehicle’ is not

eligible to drive a ‘Transport Vehicle’. A separate license would be

mandatory is the argument of the counsel.

9.5. Mr. Jayant Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel argued that

Mukund Dewangan (2017) erred in two significant respects. The

judgment overlooked Section 3, which mandates a separate

endorsement for driving a ‘transport vehicle’. Reliance was placed

on the decision in Nathi Devi v Radha Devi Gupta7 , where it was

held that ‘effort should be made to give effect to each and every

word used by the Legislature.’ Therefore, it was projected that the

Court should not disregard any part of Section 3 in its

interpretation.

9.6. The other reason why Mukund Dewangan (2017) was

incorrect according to Mr. Bhushan, was because it focused on

the general law, rather than the special provisions within the MV

Act. It was therefore argued that it is a well-known principle that

the general will not override the special (Generalia Specialibus Non

Derogant) and the special will override the general (Specialia

7 (2005) 2 SCC 271 Page 18 of 126 Generalibus Derogant). It was pointed out that Section 10(2)

explicitly distinguishes between ‘Transport Vehicles’ and LMV,

treating them as separate categories. Mukund Dewangan (2017)

erroneously subsumed ‘transport vehicles’ under the broader

category of ‘Light Motor Vehicles’. It was also contended that the

requirements for obtaining a transport vehicle license are distinct

and more rigorous because the drivers of transport vehicles are

entrusted with the safety of passengers including school children

and strangers, who repose their trust in the driver of the transport

vehicle.

9.7. In his turn, Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, learned Senior Counsel

emphasized that the classification of transport vehicles under

7500 kg within the definition of Light Motor Vehicles under Section

2(21) is a broad definition, based on weight. He contended that this

classification does not imply that the licensing regime under the

MV Act is also determined by weight. According to the Counsel,

licensing under the MV Act is linked to the intended ‘use’ of the

vehicle. Specific attention was drawn to the definition of a

Transport Vehicle in Section 2(47), which refers to a ‘public service

vehicle’, a ‘goods carriage’, an ‘educational institution bus’ or a

‘private service vehicle’. Mr. Kaul argued that in the separate

definition for each of these categories, one common factor is Page 19 of 126 discernible as each provision uses words like ‘use’, ‘used or

adapted to be used’, ‘constructed or adapted for use’. This shows

that the licensing scheme is based on usage and not the weight of

the vehicle.

9.8.Mr. Tushar Mehta, Learned Solicitor General submitted that

the definition under Section 2(21) which includes transport

vehicles is for a different regime, set under Section 113 and 115 of

MV Act. These sections are contained in Chapter VII which is titled

‘Control of Traffic’ and pertain to ‘limits of weight and limitations

on use’ and ‘power to restrict the use of vehicles’. In this context,

vehicles of specific weight may be prohibited from certain roads or

areas thereby, making weight a relevant factor. Under the said

definition of LMV, ‘weight’ has been kept as a factor for

demarcation between ‘LMV’ and ‘Transport’ vehicles only for the

purposes of determining the ‘road tax’. Rule 31(2) and Rule 31(3)

of the Rules prescribe the syllabus for training drivers for ‘Non-

Transport’ and ‘Transport’ vehicles respectively. It was submitted

that the said syllabuses are not the same. Also, the MV Act provides

that the minimum period of training shall not be less than 21 days

for ‘Non-Transport’ vehicles, as opposed to ‘Transport’ vehicles, for

which the minimum period of training shall not be less than 30

days.

Page 20 of 126 9.9. In her turn, Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, learned Senior

Counsel presented to the Bench a photograph of a bus weighing

7450 kg, just below the limit of 7500 kg. She argued that if a

school bus is operated by someone holding a Light Motor Vehicle

license, it could be very risky. It was asserted that weight should

not be a determining factor for licensing, rather it may be relevant

in contexts such as taxes, permits, and other regulatory

considerations. Ms. Dave pointed out that Mukund

Dewangan(2017) failed to acknowledge the necessity of a Form 7

endorsement for LMV license holders to drive transport vehicles.

This endorsement is crucial, as LMV license holders cannot legally

drive transport vehicles without it. Furthermore, Section 9(6)

requires competence testing, specific to the type of vehicle,

necessitating separate licenses for LMV and Transport Vehicles to

maintain the MV Act's regulatory coherence.

9.10. Mr. P.B. Suresh, learned Counsel representing the

Intervenor - The Society Against Drunken Driving, an NGO argued

that road safety is considered a fundamental right. He argued that

the decision in Mukund Dewangan (2017) has led to unsafe roads

by permitting untrained drivers to operate transport vehicles. It

was submitted that Section 7 of the MV Act requires an individual

Page 21 of 126 to hold a driver’s license for at least one year to obtain a learner’s

license for a transport vehicle, which is a critical safety measure.

9.11. Mr. Shivam Singh, learned Counsel argued that motor

vehicle insurance policies had ensured adequate risk coverage only

when accidents were caused by vehicles for which, drivers had

valid licenses. However, in Mukund Dewangan (2017), this court

referred to the weight of the vehicle, rather than vehicle usage, as

a relevant marker for statutory purposes. Consequently, insurance

coverage through judicial decisions had to be extended to cases

where drivers with LMV licenses were driving vehicles outside their

licensing permits.

C. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF CLAIMANTS

10. On behalf of the Claimants, we have heard learned Senior

Counsel, Ms. Anitha Shenoy, and the respective submissions of

Mr. Devvrat, Mr. Kaustubh Shukla and Mr. Anuj Bhandari learned

Counsel. While supporting the interpretation in Mukund

Dewangan (2017) the Counsel would contend that the vehicles

under the MV Act are differentiated according to their weight.

They argue that the definition of ‘light motor vehicle’ in Section

2(21) is an inclusive definition which encompasses multiple variety

Page 22 of 126 of vehicles including transport vehicles, the weight of which does

not exceed 7500 kg.

10.1. The learned Counsel, Mr. Devvrat contended that the

licensing system under the MV Act, categorises motor vehicles into

two primary groups i.e. Light and Heavy categories—LMV and

HMV respectively. It was argued that if a motorcycle used for hire,

weighing less than 200kg falls under the class of transport

vehicles, countless drivers operating on platforms like Rapido, a

bike-or-hire service, would be required to obtain fresh licenses if

Mukund Dewangan(2017) is overruled.

10.2. Mr. Anuj Bhandari, learned Counsel arguing for the

Claimants, took us through the history of the inclusion of

“transport vehicles” as a class, under the MV Act. It was submitted

that for the last 34 years, licenses have been granted in the country

on the basis of weight of the vehicle. Even today, Form 2 specifies

the grant of licenses based on weight, with exceptions being made

for vehicles like road rollers, e-rickshaws, or a motorcycle. He

pointed out that the original legislation identified four types of

vehicles: (i) medium goods vehicles, (ii) medium passenger

vehicles, (iii) heavy goods vehicles and (iv) heavy passenger

vehicles. With the 1994 amendments to the MV Act, these

Page 23 of 126 categories were clubbed into a single classification of “transport

vehicles.” Building on this, Mr. Bhandari contended that

“transport vehicles” under the MV Act meant medium and heavy

vehicles. Therefore, individuals with an LMV license were entitled

to drive a light transport vehicle weighing less than 7500

kilograms. Whereas, additional requirements of a medical

certificate and experience would apply only to those medium and

heavy transport vehicles which exceed the weight limit of 7,500

kgs. It was argued that the Parliament changed the nomenclature

by merging the four categories into a single class of ‘Transport

Vehicles’, to ‘simplify’ the licensing scheme.

10.3. Mr. Kaustubh Shukla, Learned Counsel projected that

careful reading of all the definitions in Section 2 would make it

clear that the definitions were primarily bifurcated as follows:

“a. ‘Class of vehicle,’ which mandatorily referred to weight: LMV [Sec. 2(21)] up to 7500 KG, HMV (Passenger/Goods) [Sec. 2(16) & Sec. 2(17)] exceeding 12000 KG, MMV (Passenger/Goods) [Sec. 2(23) & Sec. 2(24)] between 7500 to 12000 KG.

b. ‘Kind or Name’ (Description) of vehicle, which had no reference to weight: [Sec. 2(7), 2(11), 2(14), 2(22), 2(25), 2(27), 2(28), 2(29), 2(33), 2(39), 2(40), 2(43), 2(44), 2(46), 2(47)].” The legislature, according to the counsel, intended to demarcate

vehicles depending upon the weight of the vehicle and not their

Page 24 of 126 description. Thus, according to him, the entire licensing scheme

must take into account the weight classification, to ensure clarity.

The earlier unamended act set the weight limit at 6000 kg which

was further raised to 7500 kg by way of the 1994 amendment.

Therefore, the legislature intended to demarcate vehicles

depending on the weight and not the description of vehicle. It was

further argued that in the event of a conflict between the Act and

the Rules, Schedules, or Forms, the provisions of the Act will take

precedence. Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in

Aphali Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra8.

10.4 Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Learned Senior Counsel additionally

argued that on the strength of Mukund Dewangan(2017), the auto

drivers were permitted to operate taxis and motorcabs while

holding a driving licence for LMV for the past 6 years.

Reconsideration of the same is not merely an issue of insurance

coverage, rather it would directly impact the livelihood of those

driving transport vehicles with an LMV license. Their rights under

Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India should also be factored

in for the interpretative exercise.

8 (1989) 4 SCC 378.

Page 25 of 126 D. ISSUES

11. From the above submissions, the following specific issues fall

for our consideration:

(i) Whether a driver holding an LMV license (for vehicles with

a gross vehicle weight of less than 7,500 kgs) as per Section

10(2)(d), which specifies ‘Light Motor Vehicle’, can operate a

‘Transport Vehicle’ without obtaining specific authorization

under Section 10(2)(e) of the MV Act, specifically for the

‘Transport Vehicle’ class;

(ii) Whether the second part of Section 3(1) which

emphasizes the necessity of a driving license for a ‘Transport

Vehicle’ overrides the definition of LMV in Section 2(21) of

MV Act? Is the definition of LMV contained in Section 2(21)

of MV Act unrelated to the licensing framework under the MV

Act and the MV Rules;

(iii) Whether the additional eligibility criteria prescribed in

the MV Act and MV Rules for ‘transport vehicles’ would apply

to those who are desirous of driving vehicles weighing below

7,500 kgs and have obtained a license for LMV class under

Section 10(2)(d) of the MV Act ;

Page 26 of 126 (iv) What is the effect of the amendment made by virtue of

Act 54 of 1994 w.e.f. 14.11.1994 which substituted four

classes under clauses (e) to (h) in Section 10 with a single

class of ‘Transport Vehicle’ in Section 10(2)(e)?

(v) Whether the decision in Mukund Dewangan(2017) is per

incuriam for not noticing certain provisions of the MV Act and

MV Rules?

E. DISCUSSION (I) The Purpose of the MV Act,1988

12. Prior to the enactment of the MV Act 1988, the legal

framework governing motor vehicles was based on the Motor

Vehicle Act,1939 which was incorporated from the English Road

Traffic Act,1930. In January 1984, a working group was

constituted to review all provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act,1939

and to propose necessary amendments. This culminated in the

enactment of the MV Act,1988 which has since undergone several

amendments. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the MV

Act,1988 is extracted below for ready reference:

“2. Various Committees, like, National Transport Policy Committee, National Police Commission, Road Safety Committee, Low Powered Two - Wheelers Committee, as also the Law Commission have gone into different aspects of road transport. They have recommended updating, simplification and rationalization of this law. Several Members of Parliament have also urged for comprehensive review of the Page 27 of 126 Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, to make it relevant to the modern -

day requirements.

3. A Working Group was, therefore, constituted in January, 1984 to review all the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and to submit draft proposals for a comprehensive legislation to replace the existing Act. This Working Group took into account the suggestions and recommendations earlier made by various bodies and institutions like Central Institute of Road Transport (CIRT), Automotive Research Association of India (ARAI), and other transport organisations including, the manufacturers and the general public, Besides, obtaining comments of State Governments on the recommendations of the Working Group, these were discussed in a specially convened meeting of Transport Ministers of all States and Union territories. Some of the more important modifications so suggested related for taking care of –

(a) the fast increasing number of both commercial vehicles and personal vehicles in the country ;

(b) the need for encouraging adoption of higher technology in automotive sector;

(c) the greater flow of passenger and freight with the least impediments so that islands of isolation are not created leading to regional or local imbalances;

(d) concern for road safety standards, and pollution-control measures, standards for transportation of hazardous and explosive materials;

(e) simplification of procedure and policy liberalization for private sector operations in the road transport field ; and

(f) need for effective ways of tracking down traffic offenders.”

13. As per the Statement of Objects and Reasons, the important

provisions addressed the following:

“(a) rationalization of certain definitions with additions of certain new definitions of new types of vehicles;

(b) stricter procedures relating to grant of driving licences and the period of validity thereof;

(c) laying down of standards for the components and parts of motor vehicles;

(d) standards for anti-pollution control devices;

Page 28 of 126 (e) provision for issuing fitness certificates of vehicles also by the authorised testing stations;

(f) enabling provision for updating the system of registration marks;

(g) liberalised schemes for grant of stage carriage permits on non nationalised routes, all-India Tourist permits and also national permits for goods carriages;

(h) administration of the Solatium Scheme by the General Insurance Corporation;

(i) provision for enhanced compensation in cases of “no fault liability” and in hit and run motor accidents;

(j) provision for payment of compensation by the insurer to the extent of actual liability to the victims of motor accidents irrespective of the class of vehicles;

(k) maintenance of State registers for driving licences and vehicle registration;

(l) constitution of Road Safety Councils.

6. The Bill also seeks to provide for more deterrent punishment in the cases of certain offences.”

14. The above would suggest that the enactment of the MV

Act,1988 was driven, inter alia, by the rapidly increasing number

of vehicles in the country, the development of the road sector and

the need to promote the adoption of advanced technology in the

automotive sector. It is also essential to note that the Law

Commission, in particular, had made various recommendations

concerning provisions of the MV Act, 1939 and MV Act, 1988 in its

Page 29 of 126 Report Nos. 859,10610,11911 and 14912. To further understand the

objective of the MV Act,1988 , we may refer to the 149th Report of

the Law Commission titled ‘Removing Certain Deficiencies in the

Motor Vehicle Act,1988’ which noted the challenges faced by

victims and their families in seeking compensation under the MV

Act,1988 and the rising frequency of road accidents in the following

words:-

“ The frequency of accidents caused by motor vehicles and the pitiable plight of the victims of such accidents and dependants have been the subject matter of comment by the Supreme Court in a number of cases. During recent years, the number of road accidents in the country have increased more alarmingly. Almost every day one finds in the newspapers, sad tales of road accidents. …. There is therefore an urgent need for streamlining the mechanism through which the victims or their legal representatives are compensated for their loss in such accidents so that they may be able to receive expeditiously an appropriate amount as compensation for the damages sustained by them. It is felt all round that victims of motor accidents and their legal representatives, where the accident is fatal, besides having grievously suffered as a result of the unfortunate event, are subjected to the agonies and uncertainties of a legal battle for a number of years for receiving the damages due to them through the process of Court. Of late, Lok Adalats have been settling the cases of such nature but it has been found that the victims or their legal representatives are compelled to be satisfied with a paltry sum out of the damages claimed by them. Such persons have no other option but to settle the dispute because they do not know for how many more years they will have to litigate for receiving the 9 Law Commission of India, ‘Claims for compensation under Chapter 8 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939’(85th Report,1980) 10 Law Commission of India, ‘Section 103A, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939: effect of Transfer of a Motor Vehicle on Insurance’ (106th Report,November,1984) 11 Law Commission of India, Access of Exclusive Forum for Victims of Motor Accidents under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (119th Report, February,1987) 12 Law Commission of India, Removing Certain Deficiencies in the Motor Vehicles Act,1988(149th Report,1994) Page 30 of 126 damages. In the backdrop of these and other related matters, the law commission has suo moto taken up the exercise of finding a solution to some of the problems relating to the Motor Vehicle Act and giving their appropriate recommendations thereon.”

15. The MV Act,1988 is fundamentally a social welfare legislation13

enacted with the objective of providing a mechanism for victims

and their families to seek compensation for loss or injury resulting

from road accidents. Additionally, its provisions regarding licensing

and penalties for traffic violations serve the broader purpose of

promoting road safety. Being a welfare legislation, it must be

interpreted in a manner so as not to deprive the claimants of the

benefit of the legislation. Any interpretation of its provisions must

reflect the dual purpose, of not only as a mechanism for ensuring

timely compensation and relief for victims of road accidents but

also in promoting overall road safety.

16. The issue in this reference is whether an individual holding an

LMV license can legally drive a transport vehicle if it falls within

the stipulated weight limit of 7,500 kgs. The genesis of the issue

stems from disputes regarding the payment of claims by insurance

companies for accidents involving ‘transport vehicles’ operated by

individuals holding licenses to drive ‘light motor vehicles’. The

Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. v Kokilaben Chandravadan AIR 1987 SC 1184; 13 Sohan Lal Passi v Sesh Reddy AIR 1996 SC 2627 Page 31 of 126 question before this Court is not one of statutory interpretation but

also involves concerns of road safety and public welfare. In

interpreting any statute, it is always prudent to keep an eye on the

object and purpose of the statute, as well as the underlying reason

and the spirit behind it. However, we are conscious of not

overstepping into the policy domain which is essentially the

prerogative of the legislature. The legislature is uniquely positioned

to examine the broader social, economic and safety considerations

that underlie transportation policy and any changes to the law

must be rooted in comprehensive public discourse and analysis.

Having noted the broader objective of the MV Act, let us now

discuss the statutory scheme.

(II) Brief Overview of the MV Act and MV Rules

17. It is a fundamental principle of statutory interpretation that

‘construction is to be made of all the parts together and not of one

part only by itself’14. When attempting to discern the meaning of a

certain provision in a statute, it is essential to consider that

provision within the broader context of the entire legislative

framework. The context encompasses several other critical

dimensions. First, it involves reading the statute as a whole.

Subba Rao J in Gurmej Singh S v Sardar Pratap Singh Kairon, AIR 1960 14

SC 122 Page 32 of 126 Second, it is also crucial to take into account any previous statutes

that are in pari materia. Third, a comprehensive understanding of

the general scope and purpose of the statute is essential. Finally,

a critical aspect of interpreting any statutory provision also

involves identifying the mischief that the legislation intended to

address 15 . Therefore, a nuanced and thorough interpretation

would lend clarity and consistency in the application of legal

principles.

18. In this regard, Justice GP Singh in his seminal treatise on

Interpretation of Statutes16 had this to say:

“It is a rule now firmly established- that the intention of the Legislature must be found by reading the statute as a whole. The rule is referred to as an "elementary rule" by Viscount Simonds; a "compelling rule" by Lord Somervell of Harrow; . and a "settled rule" by BK Mukherjee . "I agree", said Lord Halsbury, "that you must look at the whole instrument inasmuch as there may be inaccuracy and inconsistency; you must, if you can, ascertain what is the meaning of the instrument taken as a whole in order to give effect, if it be possible to do so, to the intention of the framer of it".”

19. Let us now start by noting and understanding the statutory

framework of the MV Act and the MV Rules. A snapshot of all the

chapters of MV Act is listed below:

15

R S Raghunath v State of Karnataka, AIR 1992 SC 81; Union of India v. Elphinstone Spg. and Wvg. Co. Ltd., (2001) 4 SCC 139; Powdrill v. Watson, (1995) 2 AC 394 16 Justice G.P. Singh: Principles of Statutory Interpretation (LexisNexis,2016) Page 33 of 126 Chapter I- Definitions Chapter II- Licensing of drivers of motor vehicles Chapter III-Licensing of Conductors of Stage Carriages. Chapter IV- Registration of motor vehicles. Chapter V-Control of Transport Vehicles Chapter VI- Special provisions relating to State Transport Undertakings Chapter VII- Construction, Equipment and Maintenance of motor vehicles.

Chapter VIII-Control of Traffic Chapter IX- Motor Vehicles temporarily leaving or visiting India Chapter XI- Insurance of Motor Vehicles against third party risks Chapter XII- Claims Tribunals Chapter XIII- Offences, Penalties and Procedure Chapter XIV-Miscellaneous

20. The MV Rules contain the following chapters:

Chapter I-Preliminary Chapter II-Licensing of Drivers of Motor Vehicles Chapter III- Registration of Motor Vehicles Chapter IV- Control of Transport Vehicles Chapter V- Construction, Equipment and Maintenance of Motor Vehicles Chapter VI-Control of Traffic Chapter VII-Insurance of Motor Vehicles Against Third Party Risks Chapter VIII- Offences, Penalties and Procedure Chapter IX- Examination of Good Samaritan and Enquiry

Page 34 of 126

21. This court, to effectively address the issue, is primarily

concerned with Chapter II of the MV Act and the MV Rules which

relates to licensing of drivers of motor vehicles. The Forms

concerning driving license appended to the MV Rules, may also

bear a reference. Chapter II of the MV Act contains the provisions

dealing with the necessity for a driving license, age limit,

responsibility of owners of motor vehicles, restrictions on the

holding of driving licenses and the restrictions on the grant of

learner’s licenses for certain vehicles. Section 8 and Section 9

contain provisions concerning the application for grant of

a learner’s license and driving license respectively. Section 10

which is important for our purpose deals with ‘forms and contents

of licenses to drive’. Chapter II also contains provisions for

additions to the driving license, the licensing and regulation of

schools or establishments for imparting instruction in driving of

motor vehicles, the validity period of license, renewal, and

revocation. Additionally, it also contains provisions concerning

orders refusing or revoking driving licenses, driving licenses to

drive motor vehicles belonging to Central Government, power of

licensing authority to disqualify from holding a driving license or

revoke such license, the power of Court to disqualify, suspend

driving license in certain cases, the effect of the disqualification Page 35 of 126 order, endorsement, and the maintenance of National and State

Registers of Driving licenses. Finally, it also contains provisions

relating to the power of Central and State Government to make

Rules.

22. The MV Rules contain the procedure concerning driving

licenses in Chapter II. It covers, inter alia, general provisions,

evidence as to the correctness of address and age, medical

certificate, educational qualifications, preliminary test, application

for a driving license, driving test, form of driving license, renewal,

driving schools and establishments, duration of license, duplicate

license as well as the training syllabus.

23. The MV Act and MV Rules work in tandem, like two wheels in

the same axle, to form a comprehensive legal framework governing

motor vehicles in India. While the Act provides the backbone, the

Rules provide specific provisions for implementation.

(III) Construing Section 2(21), Section 3 and Section 10

24. To understand the divergent interpretations on the core issue

of whether a holder of a LMV license can operate a 'transport

vehicle’ weighing less than 7,500 kgs, it will be necessary to first

consider the relevant definition(s) contained in Section 2 of the MV

Act. The definitions deserving scrutiny are noted below for ready

Page 36 of 126 reference. The definition of Section 2 interestingly begins with the

clarificatory preface, ‘unless the context otherwise requires’:

2(10) “driving licence" means the licence issued by a competent authority under Chapter II authorising the person specified therein to drive, otherwise than as a learner, a motor vehicle or a motor vehicle of any specified class or description.”

2(15) “gross vehicle weight" means in respect of any vehicle the total weight of the vehicle and load certified and registered by the registering authority as permissible for that vehicle;”

2(16) “heavy goods vehicle" means any goods carriage the gross vehicle weight of which, or a tractor or a road-roller the unladen weight of either of which, exceeds 12,000 kilograms;”

2(17) “heavy passenger motor vehicle" means any public service vehicle or private service vehicle or educational institution bus or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of any of which; or a motor-car the unladen weight of which, exceeds 12,000 kilograms;”

2(21) “light motor vehicle" means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motorcar or tractor or road-roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed 7,500 kilograms;”

2(22) “maxicab” means any motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry more than six passengers, but not more than twelve passengers, excluding the driver, for hire or reward;

2(23) “medium goods vehicle" means any goods carriage other than a light motor vehicle or a heavy goods vehicle;”

2(24) “medium passenger motor vehicle" means any public service vehicle or private service vehicle, or educational institution bus other than a motor-cycle, invalid carriage, light motor vehicle or heavy passenger motor vehicle;”

Page 37 of 126 2(25) “motorcab” means any motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry not more than six passengers excluding the driver for hire or reward.

2(26) “motor-car" means any motor vehicle other than a transport vehicle, omnibus, road-roller, tractor, motor-cycle or invalid carriage.

2(27) “motor cycle” means a two-wheeled motor vehicle, inclusive of any detachable side-car having an extra wheel, attached to the motor vehicle.

2(28) “motor vehicle” or “vehicle” means any mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads whether the power of propulsion is transmitted thereto from an external or internal source and includes a chassis to which a body has not been attached and a trailer; but does not include a vehicle running upon fixed rails or a vehicle of a special type adapted for use only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises or a vehicle having less than four wheels fitted with engine capacity of not exceeding1 [twenty-five cubic centimetres];

2(29) “omnibus" means any motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry more than six persons excluding the driver.”

2(44) “tractor" means a motor vehicle which is not itself constructed to carry any load (other than equipment used for the purpose of propulsion); but excludes a road-roller;”

2(48) “unladen weight" means the weight of a vehicle or trailer including all equipments ordinarily used with the vehicle or trailer when working, but excluding the weight of a driver or attendant; and where alternative parts or bodies are used the unladen weight of the vehicle means the weight of the vehicle with the heaviest such alternative part or body;”

Page 38 of 126

25. The term ‘Transport Vehicle’ is defined in Section 2(47) of the

MV Act and each of the terms contained in the definition is

separately defined in Sections 2(35),2(14), 2(11), 2(33) of the MV

Act:

2(47) “transport vehicle" means a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle;” [emphasis supplied]

2(35) “public service vehicle" means any motor vehicle used or adapted to be used for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward, and includes a maxi-cab, a motor-cab, contract carriage, and stage carriage;”

2(14) “goods carriage" means any motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use solely for the carriage of goods, or any motor vehicle not so constructed or adapted when used for the carriage of goods;”

2(11) “educational institution bus" means an omnibus, which is owned by a college, school or other educational institution and used solely for the purpose of transporting students or staff of the educational institution in connection with any of its activities;”

2(33) “private service vehicle” means a motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry more than six persons excluding the driver and ordinarily used by or on behalf of the owner of such vehicle for the purpose of carrying persons for, or in connection with, his trade or business otherwise than for hire or reward but does not include a motor vehicle used for public purposes

26. Rule 2 of the MV Rules provides certain additional definitions.

For instance, Rule 2(c) defines an ‘agricultural tractor’ as under:

"agricultural tractor" means any mechanically propelled 4- wheel vehicle designed to work with suitable implements for various field operations and/or trailers to transport Page 39 of 126 agricultural materials. Agricultural tractor is a non-transport vehicle’ [emphasis supplied]

27. Significantly, a non-transport vehicle is defined in Rule 2(h):

“"non-transport vehicle" means a motor vehicle which is not a transport vehicle”

28. The definition of ‘e-cart’ 17 , ‘e-rickshaw’ 18 , ‘Battery operated

vehicle’ 19 , ‘road ambulance’ 20 , ‘school bus 21 ’, ‘special purpose

vehicle’ 22 , ‘motor caravan’ 23 , ‘puller tractor’ 24 and different

categories of vehicles such as ‘Category L’25 and ‘Category M26’ are

also provided in the MV Rules.

29. The above definition(s) in the MV Act and MV Rules would

indicate that they focus on various aspects including reference by

(i) weight such as light motor vehicle and heavy goods vehicle; (ii)

the intended use such as educational institution bus, public

service or private service and also (iii) the vehicle types such as

omnibuses and motor cars. Therefore, the scheme of the Act is not

exactly either user-based or weight-based but is a combination of

17 Rule 2(cc) 18 Rule 2(cb) 19 Rule 2(u) 20 Rule 2(zb) 21 Rule 2(zc) 22 Rule 2(zd) 23 Rule 2(za) 24 Rule 2(y) 25 Rule 2(i) 26 Rule 2(k)

Page 40 of 126 both. It also takes into account the evolving transportation sector

which is reflected in the introduction of new categories of vehicles

through various amendments such as adapted vehicles, e-carts,

and e-rickshaws. Notably, the Supreme Court has also

recognized 27 that hybrid rickshaws, commonly referred to as

‘jugaad’ in India, fall under the definition of Motor Vehicle u/s

2(28) of the MV Act.

30. For our discussion, much turns on the definition of LMV

contained in Section 2(21) of the MV Act:

“light motor vehicle" means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motorcar or tractor or road-roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed 7,500 kilograms.” [emphasis supplied]

31. The term ‘transport vehicle’, ‘gross vehicle weight’, ‘motor car’,

‘tractor’, ‘road roller’, ‘unladen weight’ and ‘gross vehicle weight’

are also separately defined in the MV Act as noted earlier. In the

context, Mr. Dave, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for one of

the insurance companies presented to us a visual 1 page

representation of the definition of LMV which being useful, is

reproduced below:

27Rajasthan SRTC v. Santosh, (2013) 7 SCC 107

Page 41 of 126 LMV u/ 2(21) means

Transport vehicle (u/ 2(47))- Omnibus (u/ 2(29)-

- Public service vehicle Any motor vehicle - Goods carriage constructed/adapted to carry - Educational institution bus more than 6 persons, - Private service bus excluding driver

Gross vehicle weight of which u/ 2(15) means “total weight of vehicle and load certified and registered by the registering authority as permissible for that vehicle.”

Tractor (u/ 2(44))-

Motor car (u/ Road roller (not 2(26))- Means a motor vehicle defined under the which is not itself MV Act) Any motor vehicle constructed to carry other than any load (other than transport vehicle, equipment used for omnibus road roller purpose of propulsion) tractor, motor cycle but excludes a road or adapted vehicle roller

Unladen weight u/ 2(48) - weight of a vehicle or trailer including all equipment ordinarily used with the vehicle or trailer when working, but excluding the weight of a driver or attendant; and where alternative parts or bodies are used the unladen weight of the vehicle means the weight of the vehicle with the heaviest such alternative part or body

Any of which does not exceed 7,500 Kilograms

Page 42 of 126

32. A plain reading of the definition clause of LMV as is also clear

from the diagram above shows that LMV, inter-alia, ‘means’ a

‘Transport Vehicle’. The use of the word ‘means’ is crucial here

which suggests specifics. When the statute says that a word or a

phrase shall “mean” (instead of say “include”), it is quite certainly

a ‘hard and fast’, strict and exhaustive definition. Such a definition

is an explicit statement of the full connotation of a term.28 It is a

clear signal that the legislature did not wish to maintain a

distinction between the two classes of vehicles. Such an explicit

and specific definition leaves no room for ambiguity.

33. On the importance of definition sections, G.P. Singh in

Interpretation of Statutes29 has the following to say:-

“In spite of severe criticism as to utility of definitions section or interpretation clauses, it is common to find in a statute "Definitions" of certain words and expressions used elsewhere in the body of the statute. The object of such a definition is to avoid the necessity of frequent repetitions in describing all the subject matter to which the word or expression so defined is intended to apply. For instance, the Supreme Court held that when the word "securities" has been defined under the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956, its meaning would not vary when the same word is used at more than one place in the same statute, as otherwise it will defeat the very object of the definitive section.”

28 Gough v. Gough [(1891) 2 QB 665 : 65 LT 110] referred in P. Kasilingam v PSG College of Technology AIR 1995 SC 1395; See also Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corpn Ltd. v Presiding Officer, Labour Court (1990) 3 SCC 682 29 Justice G.P. Singh: Principles of Statutory Interpretation (LexisNexis,2016) Page 43 of 126 [emphasis supplied]

34. As noticed earlier, Section 2 also begins with the phrase

‘unless the context otherwise requires’. However, any contention

based on a contrary context must avoid the risk of making the

explicit definition, redundant or useless. Here we may usefully

extract the following :-

“..However, it is incumbent on those who contend that the definition given in the interpretation clause does not apply to a particular section to show that the context in fact so requires. An argument based on contrary context which will make the inclusive definition inapplicable to any provision in the Act cannot be accepted as it would make the definition entirely useless. Repugnancy of a definition arises only when the definition does not agree with the subject or context; any action not in conformity with the definition will not obviously make it repugnant to subject or context of the provision containing the term defined under which such action is purported to have been taken. When the application of the definition to a term in a provision containing that term makes it unworkable and otiose, it can be said that the definition is not applicable to that provision because of contrary context.”30 [emphasis supplied]

35. Considering the emphatic nature of the definition given in

Section 2(21) which would suggest a strict interpretation, it would

be logical to conclude that a light motor vehicle would mean a

transport vehicle, omnibus, road roller, tractor, or motor car,

provided the weight does not exceed 7,500 kgs. The definition as

30 Justice G.P. Singh, Principles of Statutory Interpretation (LexisNexis,2016) Page 44 of 126 understood, has an important bearing on the issuance of licenses

and permits.

36. The term “driving license”, which is relevant for the present

discussion, is defined under Section 2(10) of the MV Act as a license

authorizing a person to operate a motor vehicle of “any specified

class or description”. Let us now read Section 10(2) titled, ‘form

and Contents of Licenses to drive’ which lists the different classes

of motor vehicles. It is contained in Chapter II which deals with

‘Licensing of Drivers of Motor Vehicles’. A key amendment was

carried out in the Section by deleting clauses (e), (f), (g) and (h) and

all these were clubbed under a single head of “transport vehicle”.

MV Act(pre amendment of MV Act (post amendment of 14.11.1994) 14.11.1994)

10. Form and contents of 10. Form and contents of licences to drive.—(1) Every licences to drive.—(1) Every learner’s licence and driving learner’s licence and driving licence, except a driving licence, except a driving licence licence issued under section issued under section 18, shall 18, shall be in such form and be in such form and shall shall contain such contain such information as information as may be may be prescribed by the prescribed by the Central Central Government. (2) A Government. learner’s licence or, as the case (2) A learner’s licence or, as may be, driving licence shall the case may be, driving also be expressed as entitling licence shall also be the holder to drive a motor expressed as entitling the vehicle of one or more of the holder to drive a motor following classes, namely:— vehicle of one or more of the (a) motor cycle without gear; following classes, namely:— (b) motor cycle with gear;

(c) invalid carriage1 ;

Page 45 of 126

(a) motor cycle without gear; (d) light motor vehicle;

(b) motor cycle with gear; (e) transport vehicle;

(c) invalid carriage; (e) deleted (d) light motor vehicle; (f) deleted (e) medium goods vehicle (g) deleted (f)medium passenger (h) deleted vehicle; (i) road-roller; (g)heavy goods vehicle; (j)motor vehicle of a specified (h) heavy passenger vehicle. description

37. In the context of the deletion of the classes of ‘medium goods

vehicle’, ‘medium passenger vehicle’, ‘heavy goods vehicle’, and

‘heavy passenger vehicle’ and the introduction of a separate class

of ‘transport vehicle’ through the 1994 amendment, the counsel for

the insurance companies contended that a specific mention of

‘transport vehicle’ after the amendment would suggest that a

separate endorsement would be necessary to drive a ‘transport

vehicle’. It was further submitted that even before the 1994

amendment, the second part of Section 3 always provided that a

separate endorsement would be necessary.

38. Section 3 is titled ‘Necessity for driving license’ and reads as

under:

“3. Necessity for driving licence.-- (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorising him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle [other than a motor cab or motor cycle hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made Page 46 of 126 under sub-section (2) of section 75] unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do. (2) The conditions subject to which sub-section (1) shall not apply to a person receiving instructions in driving a motor vehicle shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government.”

[emphasis supplied]

39. To deal with the above submission, let us take the hypothetical

example of Sri - who let us say is desirous of driving an auto in

the year 1990. The following option(s) of classes of vehicles would

be available to Sri, as per unamended Section 10:

(a) motor cycle without gear;

(b) motor cycle with gear;

(c) invalid carriage;

(d) light motor vehicle;

(e) medium goods vehicle

(f)medium passenger vehicle;

(g)heavy goods vehicle;

(h) heavy passenger vehicle.

40. The applicant Sri would be required to fill the Form 4,

prescribed under Rule 14 of MV Rules which was prevalent before

28.3.2001. The Form 4 is extracted below:-

Page 47 of 126

“FORM 4 [See Rule 14] Form of application for licence to drive a motor vehicle To, The licensing authority, …………………………………..

I apply for a licence to enable me to drive vehicles of the following description—

(a) Motorcycle without gear

(b) Motorcycle with gear

(c) Invalid carriage

(d) Light motor vehicle

(e) Medium goods vehicle

(f) Medium passenger motor vehicle

(g) Heavy goods vehicle

(h) Heavy passenger motor vehicle

(i) Roadroller

(j) Motor vehicle of the following description:

*** Certificate of test of competence to drive The applicant has passed the test prescribed under Rule 15 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. The test was conducted on (here enter the registration mark and description of the vehicle) ……………………… on (date)………..

The applicant has failed in the test.

(The details of deficiency to be listed out) Date:………… Signature of Testing Authority ………………..

Full name and designation Two specimen signatures of applicant:

Strike out whichever is inapplicable.”

41. Form 4 above indicates that there is no mention of ‘Transport

Vehicle’ for the purpose of obtaining a driving license. Moreover,

there is no mention of a ‘light goods vehicle’ or a ‘light passenger

vehicle’. Therefore, if Sri applies for a ‘Light Motor Vehicle’ license, Page 48 of 126 which already means a ‘Transport Vehicle’ as per the definition of

LMV contained in 2(21), can it be said that Sri cannot drive a

‘Transport Vehicle’ because ‘his driving license specifically’ does not

‘entitle him so to do’ as provided in the second part of Section 3?

We think not. The specific authorization should not be understood

to mean that Sri holding an LMV license which covers ‘Transport

vehicle’, would be disentitled to drive a ‘Transport Vehicle’. A

question would then arise about the purpose of explicitly

mentioning ‘Transport Vehicle’ in Section 3 (and other provisions

as we will discuss later)? We may notice that there is no mention

of the term ‘light goods vehicle’ or a ‘light passenger vehicle’ in

Section 10 or in the definition section. On the other hand, a

separate mention of ‘medium goods vehicle’, ‘medium passenger

vehicle’, ‘heavy goods vehicle’ and ‘heavy passenger vehicle’ as

incorporated in the Section 10 would suggest that it is primarily

targeted towards ‘Transport Vehicles’ as opposed to a ‘Light Motor

Vehicle’, which as earlier noticed could also be a ‘Non-Transport

Vehicle’. The emphasis in the second part of Section 3 should

therefore be understood in relation to Medium and Heavy Vehicles

in the statutory scheme even prior to the 1994 amendment. The

reasonable interpretation of the second part of Section 3 should

therefore pertain to a driving license for those driving ‘medium Page 49 of 126 goods vehicle’, ‘medium passenger vehicle’, ‘heavy goods vehicle’,

and ‘heavy passenger vehicle’. Such an interpretation and

understanding would be logical because medium and heavy

vehicles would require greater maneuverability and skill as

compared to drivers of the LMV class. The subsequent amendment

in Section 10 makes this position even clearer. The relevant

portion of the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the

Amendment Act 54 of 1994 may also guide us here and is

reproduced below:

“(a)The introduction of newer type of vehicles and fast increasing number of both commercial and personal vehicles in the country.

(b) Providing adequate compensation to victims of road accidents without going into longdrawn procedure;

(c) Protecting consumers’ interest in Transport Sector;

(d) Concern for road safe ty standards, transport of hazardous chemicals and pollution control;

(e) Delegation of greater powers to State Transport Authorities and rationalising the role of public authorities in certain matters;

(f) The simplification of procedures and policy liberalisation in the field of Road Transport;

(g) Enhancing penalties for traffic offenders.

The Bill inter alia provides for –

(a) modification and amplification of certain definitions of new type of vehicles ;

(b) simplification of procedure for grant of driving licences;

(c) putting restrictions on the alteration of vehicles;

(d) certain exemptions for vehicles running on non-polluting fuels;

(e) ceilings on individuals or company holdings removed to curb “benami” holdings;

Page 50 of 126 (f) states authorised to appoint one or more State Transport Appellate Tribunals;

(g) punitive checks on the use of such components that do not conform to the prescribed standards by manufactures, and also stocking / sale by the traders;

(h) increase in the amount of compensation of the victims of hit and run cases;

(i) removal of time limit for filling of application by road accident victims for compensation;

(j) punishment in case of certain offences is made stringent;

(k) a new pre-determined formula for payment of compensation to road accident victims on the basis of age/income, which is more liberal and rational.” [emphasis supplied]

42. The classes of ‘medium goods vehicle’, ‘medium passenger

vehicle’, ‘heavy goods vehicles’, and ‘heavy passenger vehicles’ as

earlier noted in the table, were subsumed under the class of

‘Transport vehicle’. It can logically be inferred that the term

‘Transport Vehicle’ primarily targets vehicles exceeding 7,500 kgs,

for the purpose of license regime. The intention of the legislature

was to simplify the licensing framework for larger commercial

vehicles and at the same time not interdict a LMV license holder to

also drive a transport vehicle. The additional requirements for

medium and heavy vehicles are also evident from unamended sub-

section 1 of Section 7 which reads as under:

“Restrictions on the granting of learner’s license for certain vehicles-

(1) No person shall be granted a learner’s license-

(a) to drive a heavy goods vehicle unless he has held a driving license for atleast 2 years to drive a light motor vehicle or for at least one year to drive a medium goods vehicle.

Page 51 of 126 (b) to drive a medium goods vehicle or a medium passenger vehicle unless he has held a driving license for atleast one year to drive a light motor vehicle.” [emphasis supplied]

43. The amended Section 7(1) however, states that:

‘7. Restrictions on the granting of learner’s licences for certain vehicles:-

[(1) No person shall be granted a learner's licence to drive a transport vehicle unless he has held a driving licence to drive a light motor vehicle for at least one year:] Therefore, the classes of medium and heavy vehicles stood

subsumed under ‘transport vehicles’. Our view on the LMV licence

holder's capability to drive a transport vehicle is also fortified by

the unamended and amended Rule 10 of the MV Rules:

Rule 10(pre-amendment) Rule 10 (post-amendment) “10. Application for learner's 10. Application for learner's licence.— licence.— An application for the grant of a An application for the grant of a learner's licence shall be made in learner's licence shall be made in Form 2 and shall be Form 2 and shall be accompanied accompanied by,— by,—

(a) save as otherwise provided (a) save as otherwise provided in rule 6, a medical in rule 6, a medical certificate in [Form 1-A]. certificate in [Form 1-A]. (b) three copies of the (b) three copies of the applicant's recent 28 applicant's recent 28 [passport size photograph] [passport size photograph], (c) appropriate fee as specified (c) appropriate fee as specified in rule 32, in rule 32, (d) in the case of an (d) in the case of an application application for medium for transport vehicle goods vehicle, a medium excluding E-rickshaw or E- passenger motor vehicle,

Page 52 of 126 a heavy goods vehicle or Cart, the driving licence a heavy passenger held by the applicant] vehicle, the driving license held by the applicant.” [(e) proof of residence (f) proof of age

44. The insertion of a separate class of ‘Transport Vehicle’ has led

to some confusion in legal interpretation. In National Insurance Co.

Ltd. v. Annappa Irappa Nesaria 31 (for short “Annappa Irappa

Nesaria”), the issue before this Court was whether the driver of a

Matador van weighing 3,500 kgs which had a ‘goods carriage’

permit could drive a ‘transport vehicle’, if he had a LMV license.

The van, which was insured by the appellant, met with an accident

on 9.12.1999, causing the death of respondent's wife. It was

brought to the notice of the Court that the 1994 amendment to the

MV Act, replaced "medium goods vehicle" and "heavy goods

vehicle", with "transport vehicle." The 2-judge bench observed as

under:

“19. “Light motor vehicle” is defined in Section 2(21) and, therefore, in view of the provision, as then existed, it included a light transport vehicle. xx

20. From what has been noticed hereinbefore, it is evident that “transport vehicle” has now been substituted for “medium goods vehicle” and “heavy goods vehicle”. The light motor vehicle continued, at the relevant point of time to cover

31 (2008) 3 SCC 464 Page 53 of 126 both “light passenger carriage vehicle” and “light goods carriage vehicle”. A driver who had a valid licence to drive a light motor vehicle, therefore, was authorised to drive a light goods vehicle as well.” [emphasis supplied]

44.1. In the pertinent judgment, this Court held that the

amendments carried out in 1994 had a prospective operation and

at the time of the accident (pre-amendment), a driver holding a

valid license to drive a ‘Light Motor Vehicle’ was also authorised to

drive a ‘light goods vehicle’. However, post-amendment, a separate

endorsement would be necessary. Thus, the insurance company

was held liable to remit the compensation since the accident

occurred before the change in law.

44.2. The above interpretation on prospective application in the

context of the 1994 amendment, however does not seem to be

correct since the mention of the term 'Transport Vehicle', does not

exclude transport vehicles that are already classified as 'LMV',

under Section 10. If this interpretation were accepted, it would

imply that medium or heavy vehicles would no longer require

‘specific’ endorsements, as those classes were removed by the

amendment. This would lead to impractical outcomes.

44.3. The contention that since Light Motor Vehicles and

Transport Vehicles are mentioned separately, those Transport

Page 54 of 126 Vehicles which (weighing less than 7,500 kg) fall within the class

of LMV would require the driver to have a separate driving license

or an endorsement does not appeal well to our understanding.

This would be contrary to the legislative intent. The classes

mentioned therein do not appear like watertight compartments

and some degree of overlap is discernible. An LMV license which

typically covers two-wheelers may also be used for commercial

activities like small-scale deliveries and the driver may not be

required to obtain a separate endorsement for the ‘Transport

Vehicle’ class. It is difficult to accept the argument that a driving

license issued for a particular class is limited and the intention of

the legislature was to exclude the Transport Vehicles falling within

the LMV class. According to our understanding, the correct way

to view the legal implication would be that ‘transport vehicles’

mentioned in Section 10 would cover only those vehicles whose

gross vehicle weight is above 7,500 kgs. Such an interpretation

aligns with the broader purpose of the amendments and ensures

that the licensing regime remains efficient and practical for vehicle

owners and drivers. We therefore partially overrule the decision in

Annappa Irappa Nesaria(supra) for the view taken w.r.t the post-

1994 amendment position.

Page 55 of 126

45. Significantly, Section 10(2) states that a driving license ‘shall

also be expressed as entitling the holder to drive a motor vehicle of

one or more of the following classes’. Therefore, the driver of a ‘Light

Motor Vehicle’ is not per se disentitled to acquire a license for a

‘Transport Vehicle’ class, for driving vehicles above the weight of

7,500 kgs or those classes which do not fall in the definition of

Light Motor Vehicle under Section 2(21). As rightly noted in

Mukund Dewangan(supra), Section 10 has to be read with Section

2(21) which defines a Light Motor Vehicle.

III. Whether the interpretation in Mukund Devangan(2017) would

render most provisions of the MV Act and MV Rules otiose?

46. For the Insurance Companies, it was argued with much

emphasis that sole reliance on Section 2(21) r/w Section 10 as held

in Mukund Dewangan(2017) would render otiose, many provisions

of the MV Act and this can have far-reaching implications. To

appreciate this contention, a careful examination of the identified

provisions is necessary. Is it correct to say that in order to drive a

transport vehicle, an LMV license holder will require by law, an

additional endorsement because the scheme of the Act provides a

clear distinction between ‘Light Motor Vehicle’ and ‘Transport

Page 56 of 126 Vehicle’? The following table marking the distinction was placed

before the Court for consideration:

Sr. Differentiating Provision Light Motor Vehicle Transport Vehicle License No. Factor Under License M.V. Act / Rules Age / Time Requirement

(i) Age limit For Sec. 4 18 years and 20 years and above [S.4(2)] Driving above [S.4(1)]

(ii) Restriction on Sec. 7(1) No minimum Must hold a Driving License grant of requirement to obtain for a Light Motor Vehicle for Learner’s License for Light Motor at least 1 year, to obtain License Vehicle. Learner’s License for Transport Vehicle.

[S. 7(1)]

(iii) Training Period Rule 31 Not less than 21 days Not less than 30 days for Obtaining [Rule 31(2)] [Rule 31(3)] License (+) (+)

Actual Hours of Actual Hours of Driving Driving shall not be less shall not be less than 15 than 10 hours. [Rule hours.

31(4)] [Rule 31(4)] Medical Certificates

(iv) Requirement of Sec. 8(3) No requirement of Application for Grant of Medical for Medical Certificate Learner’s License must be Certificate accompanied by a Medical Learner’s Certificate [S.8(3)] License

(v) Requirement Of Sec. 15 No requirement of Application Shall be Medical Medical Certificate accompanied by a Medical Certificate For prior to attaining the Certificate [Second Renewal Of age of 40 Proviso to S.15(1)] years. Licenses [Second Proviso to S.15(1)] (vi) Self-Declaration Rule 5 Requirement of Self Requirement Of Medical Of Fitness Or Declaration as to Certificate by a Registered Medical Physical Fitness. [Rule Medical Practitioner. Certificate For 5(1)] [Rule 5(1)] License

Page 57 of 126 Driving Certificates

(vii) Requirement Of Sec. 9(4) No requirement of Application for grant of Obtaining obtaining Driving License Must be Driving Certificate from a accompanied by a Driving Certificate from Driving School. Certificate Issued By a a Driving School School or Establishment for Obtaining referred to in S.12 of M.V. Driving License Act. [S.9(4)] (viii) Addition to Driving Rule No such requirement Application for Addition of License to be 17(1)(b) Transport Vehicle shall be supported by accompanied by a Driving Driving Certificate in Form 5 of the Certificate Rules. [Rule 17(1)(b)]

Separate Vehicle / Separate License

(ix) Necessity for Sec. 66 No requirement of a Permit from the Regional, or Permits Permit. State Transport Authority is required to use a vehicle as Transport Vehicle. (x) Necessity for Sec. 3 Effective License Driving License must Driving License holder may drive. specifically entitle the Driver to drive the Transport Vehicle. (xi) Separate Class of Sec.10(2) Section 10(2)(d)– Section 10(2)(e) – Vehicles Light Motor Vehicle. Transport Vehicle. Validity of Driving License

(xii) Validity of Sec. 14 Valid for – [S.14(2)(b)] Valid for 5 years Driving License. (i) Who has not attained [S.14(2)(a)] 30 years of age on the date of issue / renewal – Valid till such person attains 40 years of age;

(ii) Who has attained 30 years, but not attained 50 yrs. of age – Valid for 10 years;

(iii)Who has attained 50 years, but not attained 55 yrs. of age – Valid till such person attains 60 years of age;

(iv)Who has attained 55 years – Valid for 5 years.

Page 58 of 126 Other Differentiating Factors

(xiii) Requirement of Sec. 28 No such requirement State Govt. may make Rules Uniform and prescribing Badges and Badges Uniform to be worn by Drivers of Transport Vehicles. [S.28(2)(d)] (xiv) Duties, Functions Sec. 28 No such requirement State Govt. may make Rules and prescribing Duties and Conduct Conduct of such persons to whom license is issued to drive Transport Vehicles. [S.28(2)(h)] (xv) Syllabus for Rule 31 Syllabus Part A, B, C, Syllabus Part E, F, G, H, I, obtaining License F, G and K J and K [Rule 31(2)] [Rule 31(3)]

47. Analysis of the above provisions is now apposite. Chapter II

addresses ‘Licensing of Drivers of Motor Vehicles’. We have already

noticed Section 3 earlier that covers the ‘Necessity for Driving

License’ and specifically mentions ‘Transport Vehicle’. Section 4, in

sequence, is titled ‘Age limit in connection with driving of motor

vehicles’. Section 18 referred to in Section 4(2) concerns ‘Driving

Licenses to drive motor vehicles, belonging to the Central

Government’. Section 4(2) in its current form reads as under:

“(1) No person under the age of eighteen years shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place:

Provided that [a motor cycle with engine capacity not exceeding 50cc] may be driven in a public place by a person after attaining the age of sixteen years.

(2) Subject to the provisions of section 18, no person under the age of twenty years shall drive a transport vehicle in any public place.

(3) No learners licence or driving licence shall be issued to any person to drive a vehicle of the class to which he has Page 59 of 126 made an application unless he is eligible to drive that class of vehicle under this section.” [emphasis supplied]

48. Section 5 deals with the ‘Responsibility of owners of motor

vehicles for contravention of Section 3 and 4’ and declares that:

“No owner or person in charge of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit any person who does not satisfy the provisions of section 3 or section 4 to drive the vehicle.”

49. At this stage, we must also note the penal provisions i.e.

Section 180 and Section 181 of Chapter XIII which deals with

‘Offences, Penalties and Procedure’:

“180. Allowing unauthorised persons to drive vehicles.— Whenever, being the owner or person in charge of a motor vehicle, causes, or permits, any other person who does not satisfy the provisions of section 3 or section 4 to drive the vehicle shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.” “181. Driving vehicles in contravention of section 3 or section 4.— Whoever, drives a motor vehicle in contravention of section 3 or section 4 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.”

50. Section 6 deals with ‘Restrictions on the holding of driving

licenses’ and imposes, inter alia, general restrictions to prevent

individuals from allowing others to use their driving license.

Section 7(1) is important and provides that a Learner’s license for

a transport vehicle can only be issued to a person who has held a

Page 60 of 126 driving license for a Light Motor Vehicle for atleast one year. The

amended section reads as under:

“7. Restrictions on the granting of learner’s licences for certain vehicles.— [(1) No person shall be granted a learner's licence to drive a transport vehicle unless he has held a driving licence to drive a light motor vehicle for at least one year:] [Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply to an e-cart or e-rickshaw.] (2) No person under the age of eighteen years shall be granted a learner’s licence to drive a motor cycle without gear except with the consent in writing of the person having the care of the person desiring the learner’s licence.” [emphasis supplied]

51. Section 8 deals with the ‘Grant of Learner’s license’. The

requirement of medical certificate is contained in Section

8(3),Section 15 and Rule 5 of the MV Rules. Sub-section (3) of

Section 8 as amended mandates that an application for a Learner’s

License for a Transport Vehicle must be accompanied by a Medical

Certificate by a registered medical practitioner. However, the

unamended Section 8 did not mention ‘Transport Vehicle’:

“—8(1) Any person who is not disqualified under section 4 for driving a motor vehicle and who is not for the time being disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence may, subject to the provisions of section 7, apply to the licensing authority having jurisdiction in the area—

(i) in which he ordinarily resides or carries on business, or

(ii) in which the school or establishment referred to in section 12 from where he intends to receive instruction in driving a motor vehicle is situate, for the issue to him of a learner’s licence.

Page 61 of 126 (2) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be in such form and shall be accompanied by such documents and with such fee as may be prescribed by the Central Government. (3) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be accompanied by a medical certificate in such form as may be prescribed by the Central Government and signed by such registered medical practitioner, as the State Government or any person authorised in this behalf by the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint for this purpose:

XX]”

52. The amended 8(3) reads as under:

(3) Every application [to drive a transport vehicle made]under sub-section (1) shall be accompanied by a medical certificate in such form as may be prescribed by the Central Government and signed by such registered medical practitioner, as the State Government or any person authorised in this behalf by the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint for this purpose:” [emphasis supplied]

53. Rule 5(1) of the amended MV Rules titled ‘Medical Certificate’

reiterates such a requirement. While for other vehicles, there is a

requirement of a self-declaration of fitness, a Medical certificate by

a registered Medical practitioner is necessary for driving a

‘Transport Vehicle’. The unamended Rule 5 which does not

mention ‘Transport Vehicle’ reads as under:

“5. “Medical Certificate- Every application for the issue of a learner's licence or a driving licence or for making addition of another class or description of motor vehicle to a driving licence or for renewal of learner license or a driving license, shall be accompanied by a medical certificate in Form 1 issued by a registered medical practitioner referred to in sub- section (3) of section 8””

Page 62 of 126

54. The amended Rule 5 is also extracted below:

“5. Medical Certificate- Every application for the issue of a learner's licence or a driving licence or for making addition of another class or description of a motor vehicle to a driving licence or for renewal of a driving licence to drive a vehicle other than a transport vehicle shall be accompanied by a self-declaration as to the physical fitness as in Form 1 and every such application for a licence to drive a transport vehicle shall be accompanied by a medical certificate in Form 1-A issued by a registered medical practitioner referred to in sub-section (3) of section 8” [emphasis supplied]

55. Section 15 titled ‘Renewal of driving licenses’, outlines the

requirements for renewal within the time period provided therein.

The second proviso to Section 15(1), mandates the requirement of

a medical certificate for ‘Transport Vehicle’ and for those who are

above the age of 40 years. The second proviso therein reads as

under:

“Provided further that where the application is for the renewal of a licence to drive a transport vehicle or where in any other case the applicant has attained the age of forty years, the same shall be accompanied by a medical certificate in the same form and in the same manner as is referred to in sub-section (3) of section 8, and the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 8 shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to every such case as they apply in relation to a learner’s licence.” [emphasis supplied]

56. Section 9 titled ‘Grant of driving license’ provides a

comprehensive procedure for granting driving licenses. Section

9(1) addresses the jurisdiction involved in the licensing process.

Under Section 9(2), anyone not disqualified from holding or

Page 63 of 126 obtaining a driving license may apply, using a form prescribed by

the Central Government. The applicant must also pass a test as

specified in Section 9(3). Additionally, for those seeking a

Transport Vehicle license, Section 9(4) mandates a minimum

educational qualification set by the Central Government. Section

9(5) pertains to the requirement for re-taking the test after 7 days.

Meanwhile, 9(6) states that the test of competence to drive must

be carried out in a vehicle of the type to which the application

refers. Section 9(7) deals with disqualification and Section 9(8)

provides, inter alia, that the licensing authority may refuse to issue

a licence to a habitual criminal or a habitual drunkard or who is

habitually addicted to any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance

or whose license had been revoked earlier. Section 9(4) which is

relevant for our purpose is extracted below:

“(4) Where the application is for a licence to drive a transport vehicle, no such authorisation shall be granted to any applicant unless he possesses such minimum educational qualification as may be prescribed by the Central Government and a driving certificate issued by a school or establishment referred to in section 12.” [emphasis supplied]

57. Rule 17(1)(b) of the MV Rules stipulates that any application

for adding a class of “Transport Vehicle” to a Driving License must

be accompanied by a Driving Certificate:

Page 64 of 126

“17. Addition to driving licence.—(1) An application for the addition of another class or description of motor vehicle to the driving licence shall be made in [Form 2] to the licensing authority and shall be accompanied by—

(a) an effective learner's licence and driving licence held by the applicant;

(b) the driving certificate in Form 5, in the case of an application for addition of a transport vehicle, excluding E-

rickshaw or E-cart.” [emphasis supplied]

58. Section 14 of the Motor Vehicles Act outlines the validity period

of driving licenses, distinguishing between those for ‘transport

vehicles’ and ‘transport vehicles carrying goods,’ while also

considering the age of the license holder. According to the

amended section, individuals under 30 years of age will have their

license valid until they reach 40 years, while those aged 30 to 49

will enjoy a 10-year validity period. For individuals aged 50 to 54,

the license remains valid until they turn 60, and for those aged 55

and older, the validity is set at 5 years. This framework reflects the

understanding that driving capabilities and experience may vary

with age. The relevant part of Section 14 is extracted below:

“14. Currency of licences to drive motor vehicles.—

(1) A learner’s licence issued under this Act shall, subject to the other provisions of this Act, be effective for a period of six months from the date of issue of the licence. (2) A driving licence issued or renewed under this Act shall,—

(a) in the case of a licence to drive a transport vehicle, be effective for a period of three years: 1 *** 2 [Provided that in Page 65 of 126 the case of licence to drive a transport vehicle carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous nature be effective for a period of one year and renewal thereof shall be subject to the condition that the driver undergoes one day refresher course of the prescribed syllabus; and;] xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx” [emphasis supplied]

59. Rule 10 is titled ‘Application for Learner’s license’. The

unamended Rule 10 stated as under:

“10. Application for learner's licence.— An application for the grant of a learner's licence shall be made in Form 2 and shall be accompanied by,—

(a) save as otherwise provided in rule 6, a medical certificate in [Form 1-A].

(b) three copies of the applicant's recent 28 [passport size photograph],

(c) appropriate fee as specified in rule 32, [(d) in the case of an application for medium goods vehicle, a medium passenger motor vehicle, a heavy goods vehicle or a heavy passenger vehicle, the driving license held by the applicant.” [emphasis supplied]

60. The amended Rule 10 replaces these highlighted terms with

the single term ‘Transport Vehicle’:

10. Application for learner's licence.— An application for the grant of a learner's licence shall be made in Form 2 and shall be accompanied by,—

(a) save as otherwise provided in rule 6, a medical certificate in [Form 1-A].

(b) three copies of the applicant's recent 28 [passport size photograph], Page 66 of 126

(c) appropriate fee as specified in rule 32, [(d) in the case of an application for transport vehicle excluding E-rickshaw or E-Cart, the driving licence held by the applicant] [(e) proof of residence

(f) proof of age” [emphasis supplied]

61. Section 27 concerns the power of Central Government to make

Rules. Section 28 which deals with the power of the State

Government to make rules provides specifically w.r.t. transport

vehicles in sub-section 2(d) and 2(h) the following :-

“(d) the badges and uniform to be worn by drivers of transport vehicles and the fees to be paid in respect of badges”

(h) the duties, functions and conduct of such persons to whom licences to drive transport vehicles are issued [emphasis supplied]

62. Rule 31(2) and (3) which deal with the syllabus provides

as under:

31. Syllabus for imparting instructions, in driving of motor vehicles.— (1) The syllabus for imparting instructions in driving of motor vehicles of the schools or establishments shall be as follows (see tables below):

[(2) The lessons for training drivers of non-transport vehicles shall cover Parts A, B, C, F, G and K of the syllabus referred to in sub-rule (1) and the training period shall not be less than twenty-one days: Provided that in case of motorcycles, it shall be sufficient compliance of the provisions, if portion of Part C of syllabus as applicable to such vehicles are covered.

Page 67 of 126 (3) The lessons for training drivers of transport vehicles shall cover Parts E, F, G, H, I, J and K of the syllabus referred to in sub-rule (1) and the training period shall not be less than thirty days” [emphasis supplied]

63. Chapter V of the MV Act specifically deals with ‘Control of

Transport Vehicles’. Section 66 deals with ‘Necessity for Permits’

and prohibits an owner of a motor vehicle to use or to permit the

use of the motor vehicle as a transport vehicle in any public place

save in accordance with the conditions of permit, granted by an

appropriate authority:

“66. Necessity for permits.—(1) No owner of a motor vehicle shall use or permit the use of the vehicle as a transport vehicle in any public place whether or not such vehicle is actually carrying any passengers or goods save in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or countersigned by a Regional or State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority authorising him the use of the vehicle in that place in the manner in which the vehicle is being used:…” [emphasis supplied]

64. The necessity for a permit and the need for driving license are

two different requirements and the distinctions thereof must be

borne in mind.

65. The aforenoted provisions are pressed into service to contend

that the legislature has placed LMVs and Transport Vehicles under

separate classes. For each class of vehicle, varying degrees of

scrutiny are provided and the argument on behalf of Insurance Page 68 of 126 Companies is that the holder of a LMV license is disentitled to drive

a Transport Vehicle and a separate endorsement would be

necessary for driving a vehicle of the other class.

66. Reading the various provisions as noticed above appears to

pull the reader into two distinct spheres and this might make the

legal implications unworkable. The principle of harmonious

constructions of statutes should guide us to unravel this vexed

question.

(a) Harmonious Construction

67. In Sultana Begum v. Prem Chand Jain32, this Court examined

the relevant precedents of this Court and articulated the following

principles on harmonious construction of statutes:

“a. It is the duty of the courts to avoid a head-on clash between two sections of the Act and to construe the provisions which appear to be in conflict with each other in such a manner as to harmonise them;

b. The provisions of one section of a statute cannot be used to defeat the other provisions unless the court, in spite of its efforts, finds it impossible to effect reconciliation between them;

c. When there are two conflicting provisions in an Act, which cannot be reconciled with each other, they should be so interpreted that, if possible, effect should be given to both. This is the essence of the rule of harmonious construction;

d. The courts have also to keep in mind that an interpretation which reduces one of the provisions to a

32 1997 (1) SCC 373 Page 69 of 126 “dead letter” or “useless lumber” is not harmonious construction; and e. To harmonize is not to destroy any statutory provision or to render it otiose.” [emphasis supplied]

68. Keeping the above principles in mind, let us proceed further.

The relevant provisions of the MV Act and the MV Rules would

show that the term ‘Transport Vehicle’ is frequently referenced in

various Sections and Rules. Most of these provisions were not

noticed in Mukund Dewangan(2017). It is true that the legislature

has imposed additional requirements for ‘Transport Vehicles’.

But should it be enough to say that a ‘Light Motor Vehicle’ license

holder is legally incapable of driving a transport vehicle although

its gross vehicle weight is below 7500 kg, as is suggested by the

counsel for the insurance companies? In our view, such a manner

of interpretation would render superfluous and otiose the precise

and compact definition of LMV given in Section 2(21) which so

significantly uses the expression ‘means’. When questions on the

relevance of Section 2(21) was raised, the following points were

made:-

(a) Section 2(21) which includes Transport Vehicles is for

a different regime, set under Section 113 which places

limitation both on weight and usage of the vehicle. Section

Page 70 of 126 115 empowers the authority to restrict the driving of any

vehicle of a specified class or description. These sections

are contained in Chapter VII which is titled ‘Control of

Traffic’ and pertain to ‘limits of weight and limitations on

use’ and ‘power to restrict the use of vehicles’. Vehicles of

specific weight may be prohibited from certain roads or

areas making weight a relevant factor. Under the said

definition of LMV, ‘weight’ has been kept as a factor for

demarcation between ‘LMV’ and ‘Transport’ vehicles

primarily for the purposes of determining the ‘road tax’.

(b) Section 41(4) outlines the necessity of specifying the

exact type of vehicle—including its design, construction,

and intended use—during the registration process. It was

contended that this is where weight becomes a critical

factor.

(c) Weight is considered in Section 44(ae) of the Income Tax

Act 1961, which concerns incomes derived from transport

vehicles.

69. The above submissions which mention the weight of the

vehicle are in different context and can’t be used to render section

2(21) i.e. the definition, a dead letter. If the definition clause was

Page 71 of 126 worded differently, one might possibly argue that a distinction

could be made between Transport Vehicles and LMVs. But the use

of the word ‘means’, points towards the categorical intent of the

legislature. When a Court is faced with two interpretations, one of

which would have the effect of rendering a provision a ‘dead letter’,

the interpretation that allows for such violence to the key words

in the statute must be avoided. An attempt at harmonization

would therefore be in order. Let us analyse the issue further by

considering the following overlapping diagram:

70. The above illustration indicates that all Transport Vehicles

are not Light Motor Vehicles but some may fall within the class of

LMVs which is represented by the overlapping section. The

inference therefore is that if the transport vehicle falls under the

definition of Light Motor Vehicle in Section 2(21), the additional

requirements as outlined in the provisions noticed above, need

not be satisfied by a person holding a driving licence for a ‘Light

Motor Vehicle’ class. Consequently, a separate endorsement of a Page 72 of 126 Transport Vehicle is not necessary as the LMV license would

suffice for vehicles below 7500 kg weight. Such an interpretation

would harmonize the statutory provisions by requiring the

additional factors only for those Transport vehicles whose gross

weight exceeds 7500 kg.

71. It was additionally argued that the principle of generalia

specialibus non derogant would apply in this case. Section 2(21)

is a general provision defining a Light Motor Vehicle which

includes a ‘Transport Vehicle,’ whereas Section 3 is a specific

provision that prohibits driving a ‘transport vehicle’ without a

separate license endorsement. According to Mr. Jayant Bhushan,

Section 3 should take precedence, requiring a separate

endorsement under the ‘Transport Vehicle’ class.

72. To address the argument, let us consider the following

passage by Lord Herschell LC in Institute of Patent Agents & Ors.

v. Joseph Lockwood33 :

“Well, there is a conflict sometimes between two sections to be found in the same Act. You have to try and reconcile them as best you may. If you cannot, you have to determine which is the leading provision and which the subordinate provision, and which must give way to the other.”

33 1894 A.C. 347 at 360 Page 73 of 126

73. The important thing to note is that one provision must give

way to the other only when reconciliation is not possible. However,

when it is possible to harmonize the two, the Court need not

determine which is the leading provision. As regards the

argument of rendering second part of Section 3(1) otiose, let us

again notice Section 3:

“3. Necessity for driving licence.—(1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorising him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle (other than a motor cab or motorcycle hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under sub-section (2) of Section 75) unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do.” [emphasis supplied]

74. Section 3 refers to ‘Transport Vehicles’, like many other

provisions in the MV Act and the MV Rules. Section 3 cannot

however be construed as a special provision that would override

the strict and emphatic definition of LMV, given in Section 2(21)

and the separate class of ‘Light Motor Vehicle’ provided in Section

10. Section 2(21) uses the term ‘means’ as earlier emphasized

and there is an affirmation of certainty in the wordings of the

definition and it is to be recognized sensu stricto in a technical

sense and must not be understood loosely. To say that Section 3

would disentitle the LMV license holders to drive transport Page 74 of 126 vehicles of the permissible weight category, would be incompatible

and would render the strict definition clause, sterile and a ‘dead

letter’. A harmonious construction of both sections can however

reach us to a conclusion that for LMV licence holders, a separate

endorsement under ‘Transport Vehicle’ class would be

unnecessary for driving LMV class of vehicles. In our

interpretation and understanding, it would be logical to hold that

the additional licensing requirements will have no application for

the LMV class of vehicles but will be needed only for such

‘Transport Vehicles’, which by virtue of their gross weight fall in

the Medium and Heavy category. Such a construction would also

fulfill the legislative purpose which is to ensure road safety by

requiring only those individuals who intend to operate medium

and heavy vehicles, to satisfy the additional licensing criteria.In

our view, the age restrictions outlined in Section 4, the

requirement of a medical certificate, and the criteria under

Section 7 should reasonably apply only for the medium and heavy

transport vehicles whose gross weight will be above 7500 Kg.

Such an interpretation would fulfill the objective of the MV Act to

provide compensation to victims of road accidents while

maintaining a commensurate licensing regime for drivers.

Page 75 of 126

75. At this stage, it needs to be borne in mind that the genesis of

the present reference arises from compensation claims. A reference

to the judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh34

may therefore be apposite. A 3-judge bench of this Court noted

that the liability of the insurance company in relation to the owner

depends on several factors. The issue of lack of valid driving license

was discussed as under:

“7. If a person has been given a licence for a particular type of vehicle as specified therein, he cannot be said to have no licence for driving another type of vehicle which is of the same category but of different type. As for example, when a person is granted a licence for driving a light motor vehicle, he can drive either a car or a jeep and it is not necessary that he must have driving licence both for car and jeep separately.

89. Section 3 of the Act casts an obligation on a driver to hold an effective driving licence for the type of vehicle which he intends to drive. Section 10 of the Act enables the Central Government to prescribe forms of driving licences for various categories of vehicles mentioned in sub-section (2) of the said section. The various types of vehicles described for which a driver may obtain a licence for one or more of them are: (a) motorcycle without gear, (b) motorcycle with gear, (c) invalid carriage, (d) light motor vehicle, (e) transport vehicle, (f) road roller, and (g) motor vehicle of other specified description.

The definition clause in Section 2 of the Act defines various categories of vehicles which are covered in broad types mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 10. They are “goods carriage”, “heavy goods vehicle”, “heavy passenger motor vehicle”, “invalid carriage”, “light motor vehicle”, “maxi-cab”, “medium goods vehicle”, “medium passenger motor vehicle”, “motor-cab”, “motorcycle”, “omnibus”, “private service vehicle”, “semi-trailer”, “tourist vehicle”, “tractor”, “trailer”

34 (2004) 3 SCC 297 Page 76 of 126 and “transport vehicle”. In claims for compensation for accidents, various kinds of breaches with regard to the conditions of driving licences arise for consideration before the Tribunal as a person possessing a driving licence for “motorcycle without gear”, [sic may be driving a vehicle] for which he has no licence. Cases may also arise where a holder of driving licence for “light motor vehicle” is found to be driving a “maxi-cab”, “motor-cab” or “omnibus” for which he has no licence. In each case, on evidence led before the Tribunal, a decision has to be taken whether the fact of the driver possessing licence for one type of vehicle but found driving another type of vehicle, was the main or contributory cause of accident. If on facts, it is found that the accident was caused solely because of some other unforeseen or intervening causes like mechanical failures and similar other causes having no nexus with the driver not possessing requisite type of licence, the insurer will not be allowed to avoid its liability merely for technical breach of conditions concerning driving licence.

90. We have construed and determined the scope of sub- clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the Act. Minor breaches of licence conditions, such as want of medical fitness certificate, requirement about age of the driver and the like not found to have been the direct cause of the accident, would be treated as minor breaches of inconsequential deviation in the matter of use of vehicles. Such minor and inconsequential deviations with regard to licensing conditions would not constitute sufficient ground to deny the benefit of coverage of insurance to the third parties.” [emphasis supplied]

76. The upshot of the above is that compensation must not be

denied for minor technical breaches of the licensing conditions. It

was submitted before this Court that the decision in Mukund

Dewangan(2017) is per incuriam for not considering Para 89 of the Page 77 of 126 judgment. It is true that the Court pertinently notes therein that

“Cases may also arise where a holder of driving licence for “light

motor vehicle” is found to be driving a “maxi-cab”, “motor-cab” or

“omnibus” for which he has no licence.” However, such an

observation cannot be considered a conclusive determination by

the Court to hold that a separate license for each of these vehicles

would be necessary. Therefore, we are disinclined to accept such

an argument.

b) Interpretation must not result in impractical outcomes

77. It is well-settled that a statute should be interpreted in a

manner that avoids leading to unworkable or impractical

outcomes 35 . If a statutory interpretation results in confusion,

impracticability or creates burden that the legislature could not

have intended, such an interpretation should be avoided. Mr.

Jayant Bhushan, Learned Senior Counsel, placed reliance on

Section 9(6) of MV Act and Rule 15(2) of MV Rules to argue that if

one wants an endorsement of a ‘transport vehicle’ class, the

person has to be tested on a ‘transport vehicle’ and not a ‘Maruti-

800 car’. Let us test this argument by again taking the

hypothetical example of Sri who holds an LMV license and is

35 Madan and Co. v. Wazir Jaivir Chand, (1989) 1 SCC 264 Page 78 of 126 desirous of operating an auto for commercial purposes and as

such applies separately for a license of a ‘Transport Vehicle’ class.

Crucially, Section 9 dealing with ‘Grant of driving license’ provides

in sub-section (6) as under:

“(6) The test of competence to drive shall be carried out in a vehicle of the type to which the application refers:”

78. Sub-section (2) of Rule 15 of MV Rules titled ‘Driving Test’

read thus:

“(2) The test of competence to drive referred to in sub-section (3) of section 9 shall be conducted by the licensing authority or such other person as may be authorised in this behalf by the State Government in a vehicle of the type to which the application relates.”

79. The type of the vehicle referred above, under the ‘Transport

Vehicle’ class could therefore either be a three-wheeler weighing

less than 7,500 kgs or a heavy passenger vehicle of more than

12,000 kgs, if the class for which Sri applied is broadly taken as

a ‘transport Vehicle’, with no distinction between heavy, medium

or light category. Then our hypothetical driver Sri, although will

be tested to drive an ‘auto’, could end up driving a heavy

passenger vehicle using the ‘Transport Vehicle’ license. Such a

conclusion on valid authority would be incompatible in the

context.

Page 79 of 126 80. Let us also look at the syllabus that would be prescribed for

Sri for his application to drive a ‘Transport Vehicle’. As noted

earlier, for ‘Transport Vehicles’, the syllabus as per Rule 31 is

contained in Part E,F,G,H,I,J and K:

Part A: Driving Theory-I Part B: Traffic Education-I Part C: Light Vehicles Driving Practice Part D: Vehicle Mechanism and Repairs Part E: Medium and Heavy Vehicle Driving: Driving Theory-II Part F: Traffic Education—II Part G. Public Relations For Drivers Part H. Heavy Vehicle Driving Practice Part I. Fire Hazards Part J. Vehicle Maintenance Part K. First Aid the syllabus is contained in Part E,F,G,H,I,J and K:

81. Our hypothetical Sri, who wants to drive an auto would then

be imparted training for the syllabus outlined in Parts E, F, G, H,

I, J & K. These parts primarily pertain to ‘Medium and Heavy

Vehicle Driving’. The extensive syllabus covers topics such as fire

hazards, heavy vehicle maintenance, cross-country practice and

hill driving but those would hardly be germane for Sri who is

desirous of driving only an auto rickshaw falling within the Light

Page 80 of 126 Motor Vehicle class. The legislature in its wisdom had stipulated

such a wide-ranging syllabus to augment the safety measures as

considered apposite for operating medium and heavy motor

vehicles. To apply this extensive level of learning for the auto

driver Sri, would defy logic although auto is a ‘transport vehicle’

but of a light weight class. To avoid such an illogical outcome, the

argument of Mr. Bhushan has to be rejected. It would therefore

be appropriate to interpret the provision to declare that the

additional requirements outlined in the MV Act for ‘Transport

Vehicle’, would not cover the LMV class but would be applicable

only for the heavy and medium class vehicles. Such an

interpretation would align with our harmonious interpretation, as

explained earlier. If the alternate interpretation as suggested by

the counsel for the insurance companies is accepted, it would

mean that Sri’s driving skills may be tested on an autorickshaw

but he would also be legally entitled to drive a heavy multi axle

truck because of the broad class of ‘Transport Vehicle’. Such an

absurd result should not be permitted.

82. The requirement of uniforms and badges for ‘transport vehicle’

and the duties and conduct of such persons under Section

28(2)(d) and 28(2)(h) are not directly related to the licensing

regime. Similarly misplaced here is the reliance on necessity for Page 81 of 126 Permit under Section 66 as also Rule 62 dealing with the

‘Certificate of Fitness’ of the vehicle. Rule 62 is extracted:-

“62. Validity of certificate of fitness.—(1) A certificate of fitness in respect of a transport vehicle granted under section 56 shall be in Form 38 and such certificate when granted or renewed shall be valid for the period as indicated below:—

(a) new transport vehicle Two years

(b) renewal of certificate of One year fitness in respect of vehicles mentioned in {a) above [(ba) renewal of certificate Three years of fitness in respect of E-

rickshaw and E-cart renewal of certificate of One year fitness in respect of vehicles covered under rule 82 of these rules

d) fresh registration of same period as in the case of important vehicles vehicles manufactured in India having regard to the date of manufacture:

[emphasis supplied]

83. The apprehension about a person with a license of a light

motor vehicle class being able to drive an e-rickshaw, e-cart, a

vehicle carrying hazardous goods or even a road roller is also

misplaced. This is for the reason that legislature has carved out

exceptions for these special kinds of vehicles in the MV Act and

the MV Rules which is discernible from the following:.

Page 82 of 126 (i) Section 28 deals with the power of State Government to make

Rules. Clause (h) provides for “the exemption of drivers of road

rollers from all or any of the provisions of this Chapter or of the

rules made thereunder”

(ii) An exception is carved out in Section 7, 9 and 27 of MV Act for

e-cart or e-rickshaw. For instance, the proviso to Section 7 states

that “Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply

to an e-cart or e-rickshaw”.

(iii) Similarly, Rule 8A provides for minimum training for driving

E-rickshaw or E-cart. Rule 9 provides for educational

qualifications for drivers of goods carriage carrying dangerous or

hazardous goods.

Therefore, the present interpretation will not have any impact for

such vehicles.

84. It was also argued that the form of the driving license

provides for the validity period for ‘Transport’ and ‘Non Transport

Vehicle’. On this contention, we can benefit by the following words

of Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy in Life Insurance Corporation v.

Page 83 of 126 Escorts36, where for a similar insistence on form, the Judge opined

as under:-

"Surely, the Form cannot control the Act, the Rules or the directions. As one learned Judge of the Madras High Court was fond of saying it is the dog that wags the tail and not the tail that wags the dog. We may add what this Court had occasion to say in Vasudev Ramchandra Shelat v. Pranlal Jayanand Thakar, [(1975) 1 S.C.R. 534 :AIR 1974 SC 1728 :

1974 (2) SCC 323 : 1975 (45) Com. Cas. 43.] :

"The subservience of substance of a transaction to some rigidly prescribed form required to be meticulously observed, sevours of archaic and outmoded jurisprudence."

85. A harmonious interpretation of various sections would lead

us to conclude that a person holding a LMV license is equally

competent to drive a Transport Vehicle, provided of course the

vehicle’s gross weight does not exceed 7,500 kgs. The reference to

‘transport vehicle’ in Section 3(1) and other sections of the Act and

Rules should therefore be understood as applying to only those

vehicles which fall beyond the scope of the sensu stricto definition,

under Section 2(21). This interpretation would ensure that no

provision or word is rendered otiose and the licensing regime

remains coherent with the legislative intent. Such an

interpretation would also avoid illogical outcomes as discussed

above.

36

1986 (2) SCC 264 Page 84 of 126 V. Discussion on the 8 Conflicting decisions

86. The legal landscape surrounding the issue of whether a driver

holding a license for a ‘Light motor vehicle’ can operate a

‘Transport Vehicle’ without obtaining a specific endorsement has

been marked by a myriad of conflicting judgments. The genesis of

the present reference stems from eight conflicting decisions which

were thereafter referred to a 3-judge bench in Mukund

Dewangan(2017). On the issue of Transport Vehicles of the LMV

class being driven by a driver with a LMV License, in the event of

an accident involving an insured vehicle, some opinions have held

the insurance company liable to pay compensation while few

others have noted that the driver did not have a valid license for a

‘transport vehicle’ although he was possessing a LMV license. On

a few occasions, this Court had exercised its power under Article

142 to grant compensation despite noting that the driver did not

possess a valid ‘transport vehicle’ license. Before proceeding any

further, a short discussion of these decisions in chronological

order would be appropriate for aiding clarity to the discussion.

87. The earliest decision on the issue was in 1999, in Ashok

Gangadhar Maratha v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 37 (for short

37 (1999) 6 SCC 620 Page 85 of 126 “Ashok Gangadhar Maratha”). The definition of LMV at that time

stipulated a weight limit of 6000 kgs. The facts in that case was

that the appellant who was the holder of a LMV license, owned a

Swaraj Mazda truck weighing 5,920 kgs, which got damaged in an

accident on 26.11.1991. When the insurer refuted the claim,

questioning the validity of the LMV driving license, the appellant

filed a complaint before the Consumer Forum. The case traveled to

the Supreme Court where a two-judge bench of this Court

pertinently observed that a holder of a LMV license can drive a

‘transport vehicle’, without a specific endorsement and

accordingly, compensation was granted to the claimants. The

Supreme Court, inter alia, gave an important interpretation to

Section 2(21) of the MV Act as well as Rule 2(e) of the MV Rules

which defines a “non-transport vehicle”. In Para 10, the Court

pertinently observed as under:

“10. The definition of “light motor vehicle” as given in clause (21) of Section 2 of the Act can apply only to a “light goods vehicle” or a “light transport vehicle”. A “light motor vehicle” otherwise has to be covered by the definition of “motor vehicle” or “vehicle” as given in clause (28) of Section 2 of the Act. A light motor vehicle cannot always mean a light goods carriage. Light motor vehicle can be a non-transport vehicle as well.”

88. The Court supplemented its reasoning in Para 11 as under:

Page 86 of 126 “11. To reiterate, since a vehicle cannot be used as a transport vehicle on a public road unless there is a permit issued by the Regional Transport Authority for that purpose and since in the instant case there is neither a pleading to that effect by any party nor is there any permit on record, the vehicle in question would remain a light motor vehicle. The respondent also does not say that any permit was granted to the appellant for plying the vehicle as a transport vehicle under Section 66 of the Act. Moreover, on the date of the accident, the vehicle was not carrying any goods and though it could be said to have been designed to be used as a transport vehicle or a goods carrier, it cannot be so held on account of the statutory prohibition contained in Section 66 of the Act.”

89. The Court additionally noted that if one accepts the contention

of the insurer, “there can never be any light motor vehicle and

there can never be any driving licence for driving a light motor

vehicle. We cannot put such a construction on clause (21) of

Section 2 of the Act so as to exclude a light motor vehicle from the

Act altogether.”

89.1. Looking at the scheme of the MV Act, the above

conclusion was the correct one declaring that an LMV would

include a ‘light good vehicle’ or a ‘light transport vehicle’. While the

Court supplemented its reasoning by stating that a vehicle cannot

be used as a transport vehicle on a public road unless there is a

permit, we must understand that a ‘license’ is different from a

‘permit’. The observations of the Court on the legal issue of a

driving license, aligns with our own interpretation.

Page 87 of 126 90. In Nagashetty v United India Insurance Co 38 , the vehicle

involved was a tractor with a trailer attached, filled with stones.

The case revolved around an accident that occurred on 4.12.1995,

when a tractor driven by the driver lost control and hit two

pedestrians, resulting in the death of one person. The LRs of the

deceased filed a compensation claim before the Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal (MACT), which ruled in their favor and awarded

compensation of ₹2,07,000 making the Insurance company liable

for the insured tractor. The Insurance Company appealed before

the High Court, contending that the driver only had a licence to

operate a tractor and not a ‘goods vehicle’, as a trailer filled with

stones was attached to the tractor, classifying it as a ‘transport

vehicle’. Deciding in favour of the Insurance Company, the High

Court held that the licence was invalid for driving a ‘transport

vehicle’, and therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable to

pay the compensation to the claimants.

90.1. Setting aside the decision of the High Court, the Supreme

Court held that a person having a valid driving license to drive a

particular category of vehicle, does not become unauthorised to

drive that category of vehicle, merely because a trailer is attached

38 (2001) 8 SCC 56 Page 88 of 126 to it. Interpreting the terms of the Insurance Policy, it was held

that if the submission of the Insurance Co. is accepted, then every

time, an owner of a private car, who has a license to drive an LMV,

attaches a roof carrier to his car, and carries goods thereon, the

LMV would become a Transport Vehicle, and the owner would then

be deemed to have no valid license, to drive that vehicle.

90.2. It was rightly held in the above decision and as noted in

Mukund Dewangan(2017), that a vehicle cannot be readily

classified as a ‘transport vehicle’ requiring a separate endorsement

in the driving license. Although the Court supported its reasoning

by referencing the insurance policy terms, the legal position

remains that the term ‘transport vehicle’ overlaps with other

vehicle classes.

91. Before this Court, reliance was placed on the judgment in New

India Assurance Company v Prabhu Lal39(for short “Prabhu Lal”).

The decision would now require our careful consideration. In this

case, the accident which occurred on 17.4.1998 involved a

Roadways bus (weighing 4,100 kgs) which was being driven by one

M. This was however disputed by the insurance company who

claimed that the vehicle was driven by the complainant’s own

39 (2008) 1 SCC 696 Page 89 of 126 brother, who held a ‘Light Motor Vehicle’ license but not a

‘transport vehicle’ license. The District Forum held that a “goods

carrier” weighing 4,100 kgs defined under Section 2(14) of the MV

Act was driven by an individual with a LMV license and hence this

was a Transport Vehicle under Section 2(47) of the MV Act for

which, a separate endorsement was necessary. The State

Commission however held that the principle laid down in the 1999

decision in Ashok Gangadhar(supra) would apply and since the

gross weight of the vehicle was only 6,800 kgs, it did not exceed

the permissible limits for LMV category vehicles. Accordingly, the

Insurance company was held liable. The National Commission

upheld the said decision of the State Commission, favouring the

claimants.

91.1. Reversing the concurrent decisions of the State and National

Commissions, the Supreme Court however restored the decision of

the District Forum which held that at the time of the accident,

complainant’s brother was driving the insured vehicle. On the

validity of the LMV driving license holder driving the bus weighing

4100 kg, this Court held that a separate endorsement was

necessary to drive the Transport Vehicle. It was observed as under:

“33. In our considered view, the State Commission was wrong in reversing the finding recorded by the District

Page 90 of 126 Forum. So far as Ashok Gangadhar [(1999) 6 SCC 620 :

1999 SCC (Cri) 1170] is concerned, we will deal with the said decision little later but from the documentary evidence on record and particularly, from the permit issued by the Transport Authority, it is amply clear that the vehicle was a “goods carrier” [Section 2(14)]. If it is so, obviously, it was a “transport vehicle” falling under Clause (47) of Section 2 of the Act. The District Forum was, therefore, right in considering the question of liability of the Insurance Company on the basis that Tata 709 which met with an accident was “transport vehicle”.

91.2. The Court in Para 40 and Para 41 also distinguished the

1999 judgement in Ashok Gangadhar Maratha(supra) with the

following discussion:

“40. It is no doubt true that in Ashok Gangadhar [(1999) 6 SCC 620 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 1170] in spite of the fact that the driver was holding valid driving licence to ply light motor vehicle (LMV), this Court upheld the claim and ordered the Insurance Company to pay compensation. But, in our considered opinion, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is right in submitting that it was because of the fact that there was neither pleading nor proof as regards the permit issued by the Transport Authority. In absence of pleading and proof, this Court held that, it could not be said that the driver had no valid licence to ply the vehicle which met with an accident and he could not be deprived of the compensation. This is clear if one reads para 11 of the judgment, which reads thus:

(SCC p. 626) “11. To reiterate, since a vehicle cannot be used as a transport vehicle on a public road unless there is a permit issued by the Regional Transport Authority for that purpose and since in the instant case there is neither a pleading to that effect by any party nor is there any permit on record, the vehicle in question would remain a light motor vehicle. The respondent also does not say that any permit was granted to the appellant for plying the vehicle as a transport vehicle under Section 66 of the Act. Moreover, on the date of the accident, the vehicle was not carrying any

Page 91 of 126 goods and though it could be said to have been designed to be used as a transport vehicle or a goods carrier, it cannot be so held on account of the statutory prohibition contained in Section 66 of the Act.”

41. In our judgment, Ashok Gangadhar [(1999) 6 SCC 620 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 1170] did not lay down that the driver holding licence to drive a light motor vehicle need not have an endorsement to drive transport vehicle and yet he can drive such vehicle. It was on the peculiar facts of the case, as the Insurance Company neither pleaded nor proved that the vehicle was transport vehicle by placing on record the permit issued by the Transport Authority that the Insurance Company was held liable.”

91.3. In Prabhu Lal (supra), this Court correctly noted that the

vehicle was a ‘goods carrier’ under Section 2(14) and fell within the

definition of ‘transport vehicle’. But then it strikingly overlooked

that a ‘transport vehicle’ below 7500 kg unladen weight, would also

be covered within the definition of LMV, under Section 2(21). This

vital aspect was not discussed and the definition of Section 2(21)

was also not adverted to in the judgment. The relevant portion of

Ashok Gangadhar Maratha(supra) where it was held that the

definition of ‘light motor vehicle’ can apply to ‘light goods vehicle’

as well as a ‘light transport vehicle’, was also overlooked. Instead

the Court distinguished the judgment in Ashok Gangadhar

Maratha(supra) on the basis of evidence and pleadings in that case.

We have already noted earlier that the reasoning in Ashok

Gangadhar Maratha(supra) w.r.t evidence and pleadings was only Page 92 of 126 an additional observation. We must not confuse ‘permit’ with a

‘driving license’ to drive a ‘Transport Vehicle’. The Supreme Court

in Prabhu Lal(supra) should have followed the decision in Ashok

Gangadhar Maratha(supra) which clearly stated the legal position

that a ‘light motor vehicle’ would include a ‘light goods vehicle’.

92. The issue in Annappa Irappa Nesaria(supra), as we have

already discussed in Part III of the judgment, was whether a driver

of a Matador van weighing 3,500 kgs, with a "goods carriage"

permit, could drive a "transport vehicle" with just a LMV license.

The van met with an accident before the 1994 amendments to the

MV Act, when there was no separate class for "transport vehicle."

The Court ruled that since the accident occurred before the

amendment, the driver’s LMV license was valid for the transport

vehicle, and the insurance company was liable to pay

compensation. However, the Court held that post-amendment, a

separate endorsement for driving transport vehicles is required.

We are disinclined to accept such a view as we have already

discussed in our judgment earlier that both before and after the

1994 amendment, the enhanced requirements for ‘Transport

Vehicles’ applied primarily for medium and heavy vehicles,

particularly following the 1994 amendment. We have also

discussed the unworkability of the broad class of ‘Transport Page 93 of 126 Vehicles’ and the inconsistency this creates with the other

provisions of the MV Act and MV Rules, if such an interpretation

is adopted.

93. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v Roshanben Rahemansha

Fakir 40 (for short “Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir), the case

involved an autorickshaw, classified as a three-wheeled transport

vehicle, used for goods delivery. In this case, insurance company

resisted the accident claim and argued that the driver did not have

a valid driving licence for a ‘transport vehicle’. The Supreme Court

however reversed the decision of the Gujarat High Court and the

MACT and noted that under Section 14(2)(a) of the MV Act, the

renewal period for Transport Vehicle licences is three years,

compared to twenty years for other vehicle categories. Based on

this reasoning, the Court held that the driver was not authorised

to drive the autorickshaw as he lacked the appropriate

endorsement on his LMV License.

93.1. The above faulty conclusion was reached primarily because

the Court failed to take into account Section 2(21), which defines

a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV). Since an autorickshaw falls within

the weight limit of an LMV, the driver’s LMV licence should have

40 (2008) 8 SCC 253 Page 94 of 126 been deemed sufficient. The presumption on account of the validity

of license for 20 years could be relevant only for such vehicles

which are covered within Medium or Heavy categories.

94. In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Angad Kol41(for short “Angad

Kol”), the legal heirs of the deceased victim filed claim before the

MACT, alleging that the deceased was fatally injured by a mini door

auto (a goods carriage vehicle) on 31.10.2004 while she was

standing at a location known as ‘Hardi Turning’. The Insurance

Company resisted the claim by contending that the driver did not

possess a valid and effective licence to operate the vehicle. The

Tribunal allowed the claim and directed the payment of Rs.

1,83,000/- holding that the driver’s Light Motor Vehicle (LMV)

licence was sufficient. This view was upheld by the High Court.

94.1. Setting aside the above decisions favouring the claim, a two-

judge bench of this Court held that the holder of a LMV license

must also obtain a separate endorsement for a transport vehicle.

It noted that the definition of LMV under Section 2(21) of MV Act

would bring within its umbrage a Transport Vehicle but a

distinction exists between the two as per Section 3 which deals

41 (2009) 11 SCC 356 Page 95 of 126 with the necessity of a driving license. It was thus noted in Para

15 and 16 of the judgment:

“15. Section 9 provides for “grant of driving licence”. Section 10 prescribes the form and contents of licences to drive which is to the following effect:

“10. Form and contents of licences to drive.—(1) Every learner's licence and driving licence, except a driving licence issued under Section 18, shall be in such form and shall contain such information as may be prescribed by the Central Government.

(2) A learner's licence or, as the case may be, driving licence shall also be expressed as entitling the holder to drive a motor vehicle of one or more of the following classes, namely:

(a)-(c)***

(d) light motor vehicle;

(e) transport vehicle; [ Substituted for clauses (e) to

(h) by Act 54 of 1994, Section 8 (w.e.f. 14-11-1994).]

(i) road roller;

(j) motor vehicle of a specified description.”

The distinction between a “light motor vehicle” and a “transport vehicle” is, therefore, evident. A transport vehicle may be a light motor vehicle but for the purpose of driving the same, a distinct licence is required to be obtained.

16. The distinction between a “transport vehicle” and a “passenger vehicle” can also be noticed from Section 14 of the Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 14 provides for duration of a period of three years in case of an effective licence to drive a “transport vehicle” whereas in case of any other licence, it may remain effective for a period of 20 years.”

[emphasis supplied]

Page 96 of 126 94.2. Relying on the judgment in Prabhu Lal(supra) which

distinguished Ashok Gangadhar Maratha(supra), the Court in

Angad KoI held that a driver of the mini goods carriage auto

holding a LMV license, need not have a license for a Transport

Vehicle. The Court also referred to Annappa Irappa Nesaria(supra)

to note that the amendment (applicable prospectively) specifically

introduced the term ‘Transport Vehicle’ in Section 10. Following

this amendment, a specific endorsement for driving a Transport

Vehicle would be necessary. It was also noted that since the license

was granted for 20 years, a presumption arose that it was for a

vehicle other than a transport vehicle. It was ultimately held that

the driver did not have a valid driving license, for driving a ‘goods

vehicle’ and breach of conditions of the insurance policy was found

apparent on the face of record. However, exercising its power under

Article 142, this Court directed the Insurance Company to deposit

the compensation amount before the Tribunal with liberty to the

claimants to withdraw the same providing the right of recovery to

the Insurance Company to recover the deposited sum from the

owner and the driver of the vehicle.

94.3. Before this Court, the Counsel for the Insurance Companies

placed reliance on the above decision in Angad Kol(supra) to argue

Page 97 of 126 that there is a clear distinction between ‘transport vehicle’ and

‘light motor vehicle’. Let us examine if such argument deserves our

endorsement.

94.4. The decision in Angad Kol(supra) was rendered when Prabhu

Lal(supra) and Annapa Irappa Nesaria(supra) held the field. However, as we have noticed earlier, Prabhu Lal(supra)

conspicuously failed to notice the definition of LMV in Section 2(21)

even though it considered the definition of Transport Vehicle. It

also wrongly distinguished Ashok Gangadhar Maratha(supra),

where the legal position was clearly stated as under:

“10. The definition of “light motor vehicle” as given in clause (21) of Section 2 of the Act can apply only to a “light goods vehicle” or a “light transport vehicle”. A “light motor vehicle” otherwise has to be covered by the definition of “motor vehicle” or “vehicle” as given in clause (28) of Section 2 of the Act. A light motor vehicle cannot always mean a light goods carriage.

Light motor vehicle can be a non-transport vehicle as well.”

94.5. The Court in Angad Kol(supra) overlooked the crucial legal

analysis in Para 9 and 10 and instead distinguished Ashok

Gangadhar Maratha(supra) by relying on Para 11 where the

Court only provided additional reasoning on the requirement of

a ‘permit’. A ‘driving license’ is different from a ‘permit’. The

conflation of the two terms led to the confusion. While a driving

Page 98 of 126 license relates to a driver’s qualification, a ‘permit’ relates to the

vehicle’s operational classification.

94.6. The Court in Angad Kol(supra) also relied on Annapa Irappa

Nesaria(supra), which held that the introduction of Transport

Vehicles post-amendment would imply that a specific endorsement

would be needed for Transport Vehicles. At the cost of repetition,

even otherwise, a comprehensive reading of the MV Act and Rules

shows that the specific mention of the term Transport Vehicle in

different places of the Act and Rules for the purpose of driving

license would reasonably be applicable only for those Transport

Vehicles, that fall above the weight limit prescribed in Section 2(21)

for LMVs.

95. In S. Iyyapan v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd42., the 2-judge

bench relied on inter alia, Ashok Gangadhar Maratha(supra) and

Annappa Irappa Nesaria(supra). The case stemmed from an

accident involving a Mahindra Maxi Cab (a light motor vehicle) that

led to the death of one person. The deceased's wife filed a claim

before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal awarded

Rs. 2,42,000/- in compensation and held that a person holding a

LMV License was entitled to drive a Mahindra Maxi Cab. The High

42 (2013) 7 SCC 62 Page 99 of 126 Court, however reversed this decision noting that the vehicle was

used as a taxi and hence it was a commercial vehicle. It held that

a separate license is necessary for driving a commercial vehicle.

The Supreme court however restored the decision of MACT stating

that the driver with a LMV license was legally competent to drive

the Max Cab, used as a taxi. The Court additionally considered

Sections 146, 147, and 149 of the MV Act and noted that under

certain circumstances, insurers could limit their liability, but they

were still bound to pay compensation to third parties. The right of

third parties to compensation was protected by law, and the

insurer could later recover the amount from the insured if any

policy violation occurred. The Supreme Court categorically held

that since the driver had a valid LMV licence, and the Mahindra

Maxi Cab was classified as an LMV, the insurance company was

liable to pay the compensation. The following was the relevant

discussion for what appears to be the correct conclusion in S

Iyyappan(supra):-

“18. In the instant case, admittedly the driver was holding a valid driving licence to drive light motor vehicle. There is no dispute that the motor vehicle in question, by which accident took place, was Mahindra Maxi Cab. Merely because the driver did not get any endorsement in the driving licence to drive Mahindra Maxi Cab, which is a light motor vehicle, the High Court has committed grave error of law in holding that the insurer is not liable to pay compensation because the driver was not holding the Page 100 of 126 licence to drive the commercial vehicle. The impugned judgment [ Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1016 of 2002, order dated 31-10-2008 (Mad)] is, therefore, liable to be set aside.”

96. Similarly, in Kulwant Singh v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd43,the

question for consideration was whether the Insurance Company

had recovery rights for breach of conditions of insurance policy

when the driver possesses a valid driving licence for driving light

vehicle but fails to obtain endorsement for driving goods vehicle?

In that case, the L/Rs of the deceased had filed a claim before the

MACT following a road accident death on 8.10.2005. The deceased

was driving a tempo which was hit by a Tata-407 Tempo. The

tribunal held that the claimants were entitled to compensation.

The High Court, however, held that there was a breach of policy

conditions and the insurance company was entitled to recover the

compensation amount from the owner of the vehicle.

96.1. The 2-judge bench of the Supreme Court opined that the

issue stands covered by the judgment in S. Iyyapan(supra). It

therefore held that the insurance company could not avoid

liability merely because, the driver did not have an endorsmement

to drive a commercial vehicle.

43

(2015a) 2 SCC 186 Page 101 of 126 96.2 In view of the reasons assigned by us and as rightly noted in

Mukund Dewangan(2017), the decisions in S. Iyyapan(supra) and

Kulwant Singh(supra) were decided correctly. However, as regards

the reliance on Annappa Irappa Nesaria(supra), post-amendment

in Section 10 also, the law continues to be the same for vehicles

falling within the LMV category.

96.3. Therefore, the judgments where the Court has held that a

separate endorsement for a ‘transport vehicle’ may not be

necessary i.e. in Ashok Gangadhar Maratha(supra),

Nagashetty(supra), S. Iyyapan(supra) and Kulwant Singh(supra)

are found to align with our reasoning and interpretation and they

are therefore upheld. In consequence, the three judgments which

concluded otherwise i.e. Prabhu Lal(supra), Roshanben

Rahemansha Fakir(supra) and Angad Kol(supra) are overruled

based on the reasoning provided by us in this judgment. The

decision in Annappa Irappa Nesaria(supra) is partially overruled

to the extent that the position even post-amendment would

remain the same.

VI. Is Mukund Dewangan(2017) per incuriam?

97. Shifting gears, we may recall that the decision in Mukund

Dewangan(2017) was doubted for not noticing certain provisions

Page 102 of 126 of the MV Act and MV Rules. These include, inter alia, Section 4(1),

7, 14, the second proviso to Section 15 and Section 180 and 181

of the MV Act. It was therefore argued before this Court that the

said decision is per incuriam. To begin with, it is useful to refer to

some decisions that have expounded on the principle of per

incuriam.

98. The term per incuriam is a Latin term which means ‘by

inadvertence’ or ‘lack of care’. English Courts have developed this

principle in relaxation of the rule of stare decisis. In Halsbury's

Laws of England44 , the concept of per incuriam was explained as

under:

“A decision is given per incuriam when the court has acted in ignorance of a previous decision of its own or of a court of coordinate jurisdiction which covered the case before it, in which case it must decide which case to follow45; or when it has acted in ignorance of a House of Lords decision, in which case it must follow that decision; or when the decision is given in ignorance of the terms of a statute or rule having statutory force 46 . A decision should not be treated as given per incuriam, however, simply because of a deficiency of parties47, or because the court had not the benefit of the best argument 48, and, as a general rule, the only cases in which decisions should 44 Halsbury’s Laws of England (4th Edn.) Vol. 26: Judgment and Orders: Judicial Decisions as Authorities (pp. 297-98, para 578) 45 Young v. Bristol Aeroplane Co. Ltd., 1944 KB 718 at 729 : (1944) 2 All ER 293 at 300 46 Lancaster Motor Co. (London) Ltd. v. Bremith Ltd., (1941) 1 KB 675 : (1941) 2 All ER 47 Morelle Ltd. v. Wakeling, (1955) 2 QB 379 : (1955) 1 All ER 708 (CA) 48 Bryers v. Canadian Pacific Steamships Ltd., (1957) 1 QB 134 : (1956) 3 All ER 560 (CA) Per Singleton, L.J., affirmed in Canadian Pacific Steamships Ltd. v. Bryers1958 AC 485 : (1957) 3 All ER 572.] Page 103 of 126 be held to be given per incuriam are those given in ignorance of some inconsistent statute or binding authority49. Even if a decision of the Court of Appeal has misinterpreted a previous decision of the House of Lords, the Court of Appeal must follow its previous decision and leave the House of Lords to rectify the mistake.” [emphasis supplied]

99. Lord Evershed in Morelle Ld. V Wakeling50 (for short “Morelle”)

explained the concept as under:

“As a general rule the only cases in which decisions should be held to have been given per incuriam are those of decisions given in ignorance or forgetfulness of some inconsistent statutory provision or of some authority binding on the court concerned; so that in such cases some part of the decision or some step in the reasoning on which it is based is found, on that account, to be demonstrably wrong” [emphasis supplied]

100. A few months after the decision in Morelle(supra), the

Constitution Bench of this Court in Bengal Immunity Co.

Ltd. v. State of Bihar51 adopted the per incuriam principle. It held

that while Article 141 states that the Supreme Court’s decisions

are "binding on all courts within the territory of India," this does

not extend to binding the Supreme Court itself, which remains free

to reconsider its judgments in appropriate cases. 49 A. and J. Mucklow Ltd. v. IRC, 1954 Ch 615 : (1954) 2 All ER 508 (CA), Morelle Ltd. v. Wakeling, (1955) 2 QB 379 : (1955) 1 All ER 708 (CA), see also Bonsor v. Musicians' Union, 1954 Ch 479 : (1954) 1 All ER 822 (CA) 50 Morelle LD v. Wakeling, (1955) 2 QB 379 (Court of Appeal). 51 AIR 1955 SC 661.

Page 104 of 126

101. In Mamleshwar Prasad v. Kanhaiya Lal52 , reflecting on the

principle of per incuriam, this Court speaking through Krishna Iyer

J. held thus:

“7. Certainty of the law, consistency of rulings and comity of courts — all flowering from the same principle — converge to the conclusion that a decision once rendered must later bind like cases. We do not intend to detract from the rule that, in exceptional instances, where by obvious inadvertence or oversight a judgment fails to notice a plain statutory provision or obligatory authority running counter to the reasoning and result reached, it may not have the sway of binding precedents. It should be a glaring case, an obtrusive omission. No such situation presents itself here and we do not embark on the principle of judgment per incuriam.” [emphasis supplied]

102. In A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak53 , the Constitution Bench of

this Court made the following observations:

“42. It appears that when this Court gave the aforesaid directions on 16-2-1984, for the disposal of the case against the appellant by the High Court, the directions were given oblivious of the relevant provisions or law and the decision in Anwar Ali Sarkar case [State of W.B. v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, (1952) 1 SCC 1 : AIR 1952 SC 75 : 1952 Cri LJ 510] .

See Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edn., Vol. 26, p. 297, para 578 and p. 300, the relevant Notes 8, 11 and 15; Dias on Jurisprudence, 5th Edn., pp. 128 and 130; Young v. Bristol Aeroplane Co. Ltd. [Young v. Bristol Aeroplane Co. Ltd., 1944 KB 718 (CA)] Also see the observations of Lord Goddard in Moore v. Hewitt [Moore v. Hewitt, 1947 KB 831]

52 (1975) 2 SCC 232 53 (1988) 2 SCC 602 Page 105 of 126 and Nicholas v. Penny [Nicholas v. Penny, (1950) 2 KB 466] .

“Per incuriam” are those decisions given in ignorance or forgetfulness of some inconsistent statutory provision or of some authority binding on the court concerned, so that in such cases some part of the decision or some step in the reasoning on which it is based, is found, on that account to be demonstrably wrong. SeeMorelle Ltd. v. Wakeling [Morelle Ltd. v. Wakeling, (1955) 2 QB 379 : (1955) 2 WLR 672 (CA)] . Also seeState of Orissa v. Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. [State of Orissa v. Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd., 1985 Supp SCC 280 : 1985 SCC (Tax) 538] We are of the opinion that in view of the clear provisions of Section 7(2) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 and Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, these directions were legally wrong.”

103. In MCD v Gurnam Kaur54, A 3-Judge bench of this Court held

that:

"11. ... A decision should be treated as given per incuriam when it is given in ignorance of the terms of a statute or of a rule having the force of a statute."

104. In Punjab Land Development & Reclamation Corpn.

Ltd. v. Labour Court55, a five-judge bench of this Court said the

following in the context of the principle of per incuriam for ignoring

statutory provisions :-

“43. As regards the judgments of the Supreme Court allegedly rendered in ignorance of a relevant constitutional provision or other statutory provisions on the subjects covered by them, it is true that the Supreme Court may not be said to “declare the law” on those subjects if the relevant provisions were not really present to its mind. But in this case Sections 25-G and 25-H were not directly attracted and

54 (1989) 1 SCC 101 55 (1990) 3 SCC 682 Page 106 of 126 even if they could be said to have been attracted in laying down the major premise, they were to be interpreted consistently with the subject or context. The problem of judgment per incuriam when actually arises, should present no difficulty as this Court can lay down the law afresh, if two or more of its earlier judgments cannot stand together.” [emphasis supplied]

105. In N.Bhargavan Pillai v. State of Kerala56, a two-judge bench

speaking through Arijit Pasayat J. noted that a judgment cannot

be treated as a binding precedent, if it fails to notice a specific

statutory bar:

“14. Coming to the plea relating to benefits under the Probation Act, it is to be noted that Section 18 of the said Act clearly rules out application of the Probation Act to a case covered under Section 5(2) of the Act. Therefore, there is no substance in the accused-appellant's plea relating to grant of benefit under the Probation Act. The decision in Bore Gowda case [(2000) 10 SCC 260 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 1244] does not even indicate that Section 18 of the Probation Act was taken note of. In view of the specific statutory bar the view, if any, expressed without analysing the statutory provision cannot in our view be treated as a binding precedent and at the most is to be considered as having been rendered per incuriam. Looked at from any angle, the appeal is sans merit and deserves dismissal which we direct.”

106. In State of M.P. v. Narmada Bachao Andolan57, this Court

reiterated:

"67. Thus, "per incuriam" are those decisions given in ignorance or forgetfulness of some statutory provision or authority binding on the W.P.(C)Nos.7785, 7851, court concerned, or a statement of law caused by inadvertence or

56 (2004) 13 SCC 217 57 (2011) 7 SCC 639 Page 107 of 126 conclusion that has been arrived at without application of mind or proceeded without any reason so that in such a case some part of the decision or some step in the reasoning on which it is based, is found, on that account to be demonstrably wrong."

107. Subsequently, in Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd. v. Jindal Exports

Ltd.58 this Court observed:

“A prior decision of the Supreme Court on identical facts and law binds the Court on the same points of law in a later case. In exceptional instances, where by obvious inadvertence or oversight a judgment fails to notice a plain statutory provision or obligatory authority running counter to the reasoning and result reached, the principle of per incuriam may apply. Unless it is a glaring case of obtrusive omission, it is not desirable to depend on the principle of judgment ‘per incuriam’. It has to be shown that some part of the decision was based on a reasoning which was demonstrably wrong, for applying the principle of per incuriam.” [emphasis supplied]

108. In State of Bihar v. Kalika Kuer 59 , the legal dilemma was

noted as under:

“10. … Easy course of saying that earlier decision was rendered per incuriam is not permissible and the matter will have to be resolved only in two ways — either to follow the earlier decision or refer the matter to a larger Bench to examine the issue, in case it is felt that earlier decision is not correct on merits.”

58 (2001) 6 SCC 356 59 (2003) 5 SCC 448 Page 108 of 126

109. In Sundeep Kumar Bafna v. State of Maharashtra 60 , the

Court expanded the definition of per incuriam in the Indian context

and noted that:

“A decision or judgment can also be per incuriam if it is not possible to reconcile its ratio with that of a previously pronounced judgment of a Co-equal or Larger Bench; or if the decision of a High Court is not in consonance with the views of this Court. It must immediately be clarified that the per incuriam rule is strictly and correctly applicable to the ratio decidendi and not to obiter dicta.”

110. In a recent decision in Shah Faesal v. Union of India61, a five

judge bench of this Court reiterated that the principle of per

incuriam only applies on the ratio of the case.

111. After having examined the above decisions, when dealing

with the ignorance of a statutory provision, we may bear in mind

the following principles. These may not however be exhaustive:

(i) A decision is per incuriam only when the overlooked statutory

provision or legal precedent is central to the legal issue in question

and might have led to a different outcome if those overlooked

provisions were considered. It must be an inconsistent provision

and a glaring case of obtrusive omission.

60 (2014) 16 SCC 623 61 (2020) 4 SCC 1 Page 109 of 126

(ii) The doctrine of per incuriam applies strictly to the ratio

decidendi and does not apply to obiter dicta.

(iii)If a court doubts the correctness of a precedent, the appropriate

step is to either follow the decision or refer it to a larger Bench for

reconsideration.

(iv)It has to be shown that some part of the decision was based

on a reasoning which was demonstrably wrong, for applying

the principle of per incuriam. In exceptional instances, where

by obvious inadvertence or oversight, a judgment fails to notice

a plain statutory provision or obligatory authority running

counter to the reasoning and result reached, the principle of

per incuriam may apply.

112. Applying the above principles to the case at hand, let us now

apply our mind to the reference made in the context of the decision

in Mukund Dewangan(2017). The following questions were

referred:

“1. What is the meaning to be given to the definition of “light motor vehicle” as defined in Section 2(21) of the MV Act? Whether transport vehicles are excluded from it?

2. Whether “transport vehicle” and “omnibus” the “gross vehicle weight” of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg would be a “light motor vehicle” and also motor car or tractor or a roadroller, “unladen weight” of which does not exceed 7500 kg and holder of a licence to drive the class of “light motor vehicle” as provided in Section 10(2)(d) would

Page 110 of 126 be competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the “gross vehicle weight” of which does not exceed 7500 kg or a motor car or tractor or roadroller, the “unladen weight” of which does not exceed 7500 kg?

3. What is the effect of the amendment made by virtue of Act 54 of 1994 w.e.f. 14-11-1994 while substituting clauses

(e) to (h) of Section 10(2) which contained “medium goods vehicle”, “medium passenger motor vehicle”, “heavy goods vehicle” and “heavy passenger motor vehicle” by “transport vehicle”? Whether insertion of expression “transport vehicle” under Section 10(2)(e) is related to said substituted classes only or it also excluded transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class from the purview of Sections 10(2)(d) and 2(41) of the Act?

4. What is the effect of amendment of Form 4 as to the operation of the provisions contained in Section 10 as amended in the year 1994 and whether the procedure to obtain the driving licence for transport vehicle of the class of “light motor vehicle” has been changed?”

113. The judgment in Mukund Dewangan (2017), shows that the

3 Judge Bench considered Section 2(21), 2(47) read with Section

10 of MV Act. The Court also examined the legislative intent behind

the 1994 amendment to Section 10, noting that while the

amendment introduced the term "transport vehicle" under Section

10(2)(e), it did not amend the definition of LMVs under Section

2(21). It was further observed that the newly inserted provision of

Section 10(2)(e) would only subsume those classes of vehicles that

were contained in Sections 10(2)(e) to 10(2)(h) of the un-amended

Act i.e. medium goods vehicle, medium passenger vehicle, heavy

goods vehicle and heavy passenger vehicle, and which now stand

Page 111 of 126 deleted by virtue of the amendment of 1994. Since no amendment

was carried out in Section 10(2)(d) of the Act which contains the

class for ‘Light Motor Vehicles’, the scope of Section10(2)(d) would

remain intact as is contained in Section 2(21) of the Act, which is

to say that LMV would include ‘Transport Vehicles’ in cases where

the gross weight of such vehicle is less than 7500 Kgs. It further

noted that the syllabus does not provide separate training for

transport vehicles but includes them under the relevant vehicle

class based on the vehicle’s weight. It considered Rule 75 which

deals with ‘State Register of motor vehicles’ as provided in Form

41. Form 41 categorizes vehicles on the basis of, inter alia, gross

vehicle weight, unladen weight etc. Likewise, the Court observed

that Section 41, pertaining to registration, mandates the inclusion

of relevant information as specified in Form 20, which outlines

details such as the class of vehicle, gross vehicle weight, and

unladen weight, among other factors.

114. The court analysed those key provisions of the Act and Rules

and reached a conclusion which is aligned with the discussion and

opinion in this judgment. It rightly concluded as under:

“(i) ‘Light motor vehicle’ as defined in section 2(21) of the Act would include a transport vehicle as per the weight prescribed in section 2(21) read with section 2(15) and 2(48). Such transport vehicles are not excluded

Page 112 of 126 from the definition of the light motor vehicle by virtue of Amendment Act No.54/1994.

(ii) A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg. would be a light motor vehicle and also motor car or tractor or a road roller, ‘unladen weight’ of which does not exceed 7500 kg. and holder of a driving licence to drive class of “light motor vehicle” as provided in section 10(2)(d) is competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg. or a motor car or tractor or road-roller, the “unladen weight” of which does not exceed 7500 kg. That is to say, no separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class as enumerated above. A licence issued under section 10(2)(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54/1994 and 28.3.2001 in the form.

(iii) The effect of the amendment made by virtue of Act No.54/1994 w.e.f. 14.11.1994 while substituting clauses (e) to (h) of section 10(2) which contained “medium goods vehicle” in section 10(2)(e), medium passenger motor vehicle in section 10(2)(f), heavy goods vehicle in section 10(2)(g) and “heavy passenger motor vehicle” in section 10(2)(h) with expression ‘transport vehicle’ as substituted in section 10(2)(e) related only to the aforesaid substituted classes only. It does not exclude transport vehicle, from the purview of section 10(2)(d) and section 2(41) of the Act i.e. light motor vehicle.

(iv) The effect of amendment of Form 4 by insertion of “transport vehicle” is related only to the categories which were substituted in the year 1994 and the procedure to obtain driving licence for transport vehicle of class of “light motor vehicle” continues to be the same as it was and has not been changed and there is no requirement to obtain separate endorsement to drive transport vehicle, and if a driver is holding licence to drive light motor vehicle, he can drive transport vehicle of such class without any endorsement to that effect.”

115. It is true that Mukund Dewangan (2017) did not analyse the

provisions that distinguish transport and non-transport vehicles,

as noted in the reference orders. The statutory scheme of MV is

Page 113 of 126 more nuanced than the simple weight-based distinction made in

the said judgment. Moreover, the Court failed to notice Section

31(2) and 31(3) which specify ‘Transport’ and ‘Non-Transport’

vehicles. However, the judgment gave due consideration to the

important statutory provisions. We have carefully looked at the

relevant and the wide ranging provisions in our analysis in this

decision. A harmonious interpretation, as we have explained

earlier, would lead us to the same conclusion but fortified with

some additional reasoning based on the consideration of all the

relevant provisions. The overlooked provisions would not, in our

considered opinion, alter the eventual pronouncement.

Importantly, we do not notice any glaring error or omission that

would alter the outcome of the case. Therefore, the ratio in Mukund

Dewangan (2017) should not be disturbed by applying the

principles of per incuriam.

F. IMPACT ON ROAD SAFETY

116. The counsel for the insurance Companies raised concerns

regarding road safety, arguing that if the present law in Mukund

Dewangan(2017) is not interfered with, unfit drivers will start

plying Transport Vehicles putting at risk the lives of thousands of

people. One of the supporting Intervenors placed reliance on Para

Page 114 of 126 57 of the decision of this Court in Savelife Foundation v. Union of

India 62 where this Court while exercising its public interest

litigation jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution of India

held that the Right to life under Article 21 also includes the right

to safety of persons travelling on the road. Per contra, in the

intervention application filed on behalf of auto drivers, it was

argued that the members of the Applicant Intervenor have been

permitted to operate taxis and motorcabs while holding an LMV

licence for the past almost 6 years. Reconsideration of the same is

not merely an issue of insurance coverage, rather it directly

pertains to the livelihood of those operating transport vehicles of

the LMV class, thereby giving rise to a fair consideration of their

rights under Article 19(1)(g). It was submitted that if this Court

upsets Mukund Dewangan(2017), which it should not, a transition

period of 12-24 months be provided.

117. The above submissions will now require our consideration.

It is true that in its PIL jurisdiction, this Court has passed orders

in a myriad of cases including elevating the right of road safety to

a fundamental right. It has also taken over policy areas 63 by

62 (2016) 7 SCC 194

See Ashok H Desai and S Muralidhar, ‘Public Interest Litigation: Potential 63

and Problems’ in B.N Kirpal and others (eds), Supreme but not Infallible – Page 115 of 126 appointing Commissioners to gather facts or to take expert advice

in the form of reports. However, this Court should be conscious

that this is neither a Public Interest Litigation jurisdiction nor is

the Court testing the constitutional validity of any of the

provisions. Moreover, no empirical data has been produced before

us to show that road accidents in India have increased as a direct

result of drivers with LMV license, plying a transport vehicle of

LMV class of vehicles whose gross weight is within 7500 Kg. Road

safety is indeed an important objective of the MV Act but our

reasoning must not be founded on unverified assumptions without

any empirical data. The dangers of reasoning without empirical

data 64 and beyond the statutory scheme of the Act must be

avoided. While we are mindful of issues of road safety, the task of

crafting policy lies within the domain of the legislature. As a

constitutional court, it is not our role to dictate policy decisions or

rewrite laws. We must be mindful of the institutional limitation to

address such concerns.

118. The complexities surrounding the question of whether the

Court should examine not only the existing laws and definitions,

Essays in Honour of the Supreme Court of India (Oxford University Press 2000)

Anuj Bhuwania, ‘Courting the People— Public Interest Litigation in Post- 64

Emergency India’ (Cambridge University Press 2017). Page 116 of 126 but also the broader underlying issues of policy have been vividly

captured in the following words from Salmond on

Jurisprudence65:

“Rules, which are originally designed to fit social needs, develop into concepts, which then proceed to take on a life of their own to the detriment of legal development. The resulting "jurisprudence of concepts" produces a slot- machine approach to law whereby new points posing questions of social policy are decided, not by reference to the underlying social situation, but by reference to the meaning and definition of the legal concepts involved. This formalistic a priori approach confines the law in a strait-jacket instead of permitting it to expand to meet the new needs and requirements of changing society. ……In such cases Courts should examine not only the existing laws and legal concepts, but also the broader underlying issues of policy. In fact presently, judges are seen to be paying increasing attention to the possible effects of their decision one way or the other…… Such an approach is to be welcomed, but it also warrants two comments. First, judicial inquiry into the general effects of a proposed decision tends itself to be of a fairly speculative nature. Secondly, Too much regard for policy and too little for legal consistency may result in a confusing and illogical complex of contrary decisions; and while it is true that ‘the life of the law has not been logic, it has been experience’ and that we should not wish it otherwise, nevertheless we should remember that ‘no system of law can be workable if it has not got logic at the root of it” [emphasis supplied]

65 P.J. Fitzgerald(Ed), ‘Salmond on Jurisprudence’ (12th edn, Sweet and

Maxwell 1966) Page 117 of 126

119. What follows from the above is that wherever possible, the

Court must attempt to be consistent in its approach. The principle

of stare decisis, which mandates that courts adhere to established

precedents, plays a crucial role in maintaining legal stability and

predictability. The finding in Mukund Dewangan(2017) need not

be disturbed owing to speculative concerns of road safety that

intersect with broader policy issues.

120. We may recall that during the course of the present

proceeding, the Central Government was arrayed and the learned

Attorney General was requested to obtain instructions on whether

the legislative wing would wish to examine and undertake an

appropriate amendment on the legal question of whether a person

holding a driving license for a light motor vehicle is

entitled to legally drive a ‘transport vehicle’ of a specified weight.

An order to this effect was passed in light of the possible social

impact of the reference, particularly on road safety and the

livelihood issue. Pursuant to this, the learned Attorney General

submitted a note, inter alia, suggesting multiple amendments

including a further classification of LMVs into LMV Class 1 and

LMV Class 2, each with different weight thresholds.

Page 118 of 126

121. Had the Parliament acted sooner to amend the MV Act and

clearly differentiated between classes, categories and types, much

of the uncertainty surrounding driving licenses could have been

addressed, reducing the need for frequent litigation and an unclear

legal terrain. The confusion and inconsistency in judicial decisions

continued to persist for 25 years starting from the 1999 decision

in Ashok Gangadhar Maratha(supra).

122. Road safety is a serious public health issue globally. It is

crucial to mention that in India, over 1.7 lakh persons66 were killed

in road accidents in 2023. The causes of such accidents are

diverse, and assumptions that they stem from drivers operating

light transport vehicles with an LMV license are unsubstantiated.

Factors67 contributing to road accidents include careless driving,

speeding, poor road design, and failure to adhere to traffic laws.

Other significant contributors are mobile phone usage, fatigue,

and non-compliance with seat belt or helmet regulations.

123. Driving a motor vehicle is a complex task requiring both

practical skills and theoretical knowledge. Safe driving involves not

66 Dipak K Dash, Accidents killed 474 on daily average in 2023 (October 20,2024) <https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/accidents-killed-474- daily-on-average-in-2023/articleshow/114384171.cms> 67 WHO(2023) Global Status Report on Road Safety India 2023 Country profile https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/road-safety-ind-2023- country-profile Page 119 of 126 only technical vehicle control68 but also proficiency in various road

conditions, including managing speed 69 , turns, and spatial

awareness relative to other vehicles. Additionally, handling road

gradients demands skill, particularly with brakes 70 and

maneuvering. Effective driving requires awareness of road signs,

adherence to traffic rules 71 , and a focus on the road free from

distractions. The core skills expected of all drivers apply

universally, regardless of whether the vehicle falls into transport

or non-transport categories.

124. At this juncture, it is also essential to note the scheme 72

devised in accordance with Section 75 of MV Act whereby the pre-

requisites in the form of ‘General Conditions’ to be maintained by

the ‘holder of license’ ensure safety and compliance. Certain

guidelines73 have also been enacted in so far as aggregators are

concerned whereby chapters outlining ‘Conditions for grant of

licence for Aggregator’, ‘Compliance with regard to Drivers’,

‘Compliance with regard to Vehicles’ as also ‘Compliances to

68 See MV Rules, Rule 31, Part D Vehicle Mechanism and Repairs 69 See MV Act, Section 112 Limits of Speed 70 See MV rules, Rule 31, Part A-Driving Theory-I, 71 See MV Rules, Rule 31, Part B-Traffic Education-I and Part F-Traffic Education-II 72 Rent a Cab Scheme, 1989; Vide S.O. 437 (E), dated 12th June, 1989, published in the Gazette of India, Extra. Pt. II, Sec. 3(ii), dated 12th June, 1989 73 Motor Vehicle Aggregator Guidelines, 2020 Page 120 of 126 ensure safety’ further address the speculative concerns raised on

behalf of the counsel for insurance companies.

G. CONCLUSION

125. The licensing regime under the MV Act and the MV Rules,

when read as a whole, does not provide for a separate endorsement

for operating a ‘Transport Vehicle’, if a driver already holds a LMV

license. We must however clarify that the exceptions carved out by

the legislature for special vehicles like e-carts and e-rickshaws74,

or vehicles carrying hazardous goods75, will remain unaffected by

the decision of this Court.

126. As discussed earlier in this judgment, the definition of LMV

under Section 2(21) of the MV Act explicitly provides what a

‘Transport Vehicle’ ‘means’. This Court must ensure that neither

provision i.e. the definition under Section 2(21) or the second part

of Section 3(1) which concerns the necessity for a driving license

for a ‘Transport Vehicle’ is reduced to a dead letter of law.

Therefore, the emphasis on ‘Transport Vehicle’ in the licensing

scheme has to be understood only in the context of the ‘medium’

74 See Rule 8A of MV Rules,’Minimum training required for driving E- rickshaw or E-cart’ 75 See Rule 9 of MV Rules, ’Educational Qualification for drivers of goods carriages carrying dangerous or hazardous goods’ Page 121 of 126 and ‘heavy’ vehicles. This harmonious reading also aligns with the

objective of the 1994 amendment in Section 10(2) to simplify the

licensing procedure76.

127. The above interpretation also does not defeat the broader

twin objectives of the MV Act i.e. road safety and ensuring timely

compensation and relief for victims of road accidents. The aspect

of road safety is earlier discussed at length. An authoritative

pronouncement by this Court would prevent insurance companies

from taking a technical plea to defeat a legitimate claim for

compensation involving an insured vehicle weighing below 7,500

kgs driven by a person holding a driving license of a ‘Light Motor

Vehicle’ class.

128. In an era where autonomous or driver-less vehicles are no

longer tales of science fiction and app-based passenger platforms

are a modern reality, the licensing regime cannot remain static.

The amendments that have been carried out by the Indian

legislature may not have dealt with all possible concerns. As we

were informed by the Learned Attorney General that a legislative

exercise is underway, we hope that a comprehensive amendment

76 The classes medium goods vehicle[(10(2)(e)], medium passenger vehicle[10(2)(f)],heavy goods vehicle[10(2)(g)] and heavy passenger vehicle [10(2)(h)] were deleted and a new class ‘Transport Vehicle’ was introduced in Section 10(2)(e).

Page 122 of 126 to address the statutory lacunae will be made with necessary

corrective measures.

129. Just to flag one concern, the legislature through the 1994

amendment in Section 10(2)(e) in order to introduce ‘transport

vehicle’ as a separate class could not have intended to merge light

motor vehicle (which continued as a distinct class) along with

medium, and heavy vehicles into a single class. Else, it would give

rise to a situation in which Sri (our hypothetical character),

wanting to participate in the cycling sport, is put through the

rigorous training relevant only for a multisport like Triathlon,

which requires a much higher degree of endurance and

athleticism. The effort therefore should be to ensure that the

statute remains practical and workable.

130. Now harking back to the primary issue and noticing that

the core driving skills (as enunciated in the earlier paragraphs),

expected to be mastered by all drivers are universal – regardless of

whether the vehicle falls into “Transport” or “Non-Transport”

category, it is the considered opinion of this Court that if the gross

vehicle weight is within 7,500 kg - the quintessential common

man’s driver Sri, with LMV license, can also drive a “Transport

Vehicle”. We are able to reach such a conclusion as none of the

Page 123 of 126 parties in this case has produced any empirical data to

demonstrate that the LMV driving licence holder, driving a

‘Transport Vehicle’, is a significant cause for road accidents in

India. The additional eligibility criteria as specified in MV Act and

MV Rules as discussed in this judgment will apply only to such

vehicle (‘medium goods vehicle’, ‘medium passenger vehicle’,

‘heavy goods vehicle’ and ‘heavy passenger vehicle’), whose gross

weight exceeds 7,500 Kg. Our present interpretation on how the

licensing regime is to operate for drivers under the statutory

scheme is unlikely to compromise the road safety concerns. This

will also effectively address the livelihood issues for drivers

operating Transport Vehicles (who clock maximum hours behind

the wheels), in legally operating “Transport vehicles” (below 7,500

Kg), with their LMV driving license. Perforce Sri must drive

responsibly and should have no occasion to be called either a

maniac or an idiot (as mentioned in the first paragraph), while he

is behind the wheels. Such harmonious interpretation will

substantially address the vexed question of law before this Court.

131. Our conclusions following the above discussion are as

under:-

(I) A driver holding a license for Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) class, under Section 10(2)(d) for vehicles with a gross Page 124 of 126 vehicle weight under 7,500 kg, is permitted to operate a ‘Transport Vehicle’ without needing additional authorization under Section 10(2)(e) of the MV Act specifically for the ‘Transport Vehicle’ class. For licensing purposes, LMVs and Transport Vehicles are not entirely separate classes. An overlap exists between the two. The special eligibility requirements will however continue to apply for, inter alia, e-carts, e-

rickshaws, and vehicles carrying hazardous goods.

(II) The second part of Section 3(1), which emphasizes the necessity of a specific requirement to drive a ‘Transport Vehicle,’ does not supersede the definition of LMV provided in Section 2(21) of the MV Act.

(III) The additional eligibility criteria specified in the MV Act and MV Rules generally for driving ‘transport vehicles’ would apply only to those intending to operate vehicles with gross vehicle weight exceeding 7,500 kg i.e. ‘medium goods vehicle’, ‘medium passenger vehicle’, ‘heavy goods vehicle’ and ‘heavy passenger vehicle’.

(IV) The decision in Mukund Dewangan (2017) is upheld but for reasons as explained by us in this judgment. In the absence of any obtrusive omission, the decision is not per incuriam, even if certain provisions of the MV Act and MV Rules were not considered in the said judgment.

Page 125 of 126

132. The reference is answered in the above terms. The Registry

is directed to list the matters before the appropriate Bench after

obtaining directions from Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India.

..……..……………….……………………CJI [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD]

……..…………………..……………………..J [HRISHIKESH ROY]

………..…..……..……….……………………J [PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA]

.…………………………….…………………..J [PANKAJ MITHAL]

……………..……………………….…………J [MANOJ MISRA] NEW DELHI;

NOVEMBER 06, 2024

Page 126 of 126