Date of the Judgment: 06 November 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 840
Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI, Hrishikesh Roy, J, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J, Pankaj Mithal, J, Manoj Misra, J
Can a person holding a license for a ‘Light Motor Vehicle’ (LMV) also drive a ‘Transport Vehicle’? The Supreme Court of India has addressed this crucial question, clarifying the legal position on driving licenses for different vehicle categories. This judgment settles a long-standing debate and provides much-needed clarity on the issue. The five-judge Constitution Bench, with the opinion authored by Justice Hrishikesh Roy, has provided a comprehensive analysis of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and related rules.
Case Background
The core issue revolves around whether a person with a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) license can legally drive a ‘Transport Vehicle’, particularly if the vehicle’s gross weight is below 7,500 kg. This question arose due to conflicting interpretations of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) and the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (MV Rules). The matter was initially flagged by a two-judge bench in 2016, noting inconsistencies in previous judgments. This led to a reference to a three-judge bench, which in 2017, concluded that an LMV license holder could indeed drive a ‘Transport Vehicle’ within the specified weight limit. However, this decision was again challenged, leading to the present five-judge Constitution Bench to settle the matter.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2016 | A two-judge bench initially notices conflicting views on the interpretation of “light motor vehicle” in the MV Act. |
| 2017 | A three-judge bench in Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. concludes that a separate endorsement is not required for an LMV license holder to drive a transport vehicle under 7,500 kg. |
| 03 May 2018 | A two-judge bench refers the matter to a larger bench, noting that certain provisions of the MV Act and MV Rules were not considered in the 2017 judgment. |
| 08 March 2022 | A three-judge bench refers the matter to a five-judge Constitution Bench. |
| 20 July 2023 | The Union Government’s acceptance of the 2017 decision is brought to the Court’s attention. |
| 13 September 2023 | The five-judge bench requests the Union Government to provide its specific stand on the issue. |
| 16 April 2024 | The Union Government submits a note on proposed amendments to the MV Act. |
| 21 August 2024 | The Court hears the matter and reserves judgment. |
| 06 November 2024 | The Supreme Court delivers its judgment. |
Course of Proceedings
The legal journey began with a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court noticing conflicting views in eight different judgments regarding the definition of “light motor vehicle” under Section 2(21) of the MV Act. This bench framed questions for determination by a three-judge bench. The three-judge bench in Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2017) concluded that a separate endorsement on the license was not required to drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class. However, this decision was challenged by insurance companies, leading to the matter being referred to a larger bench of three judges, which then referred it to a five-judge Constitution Bench for final resolution.
Legal Framework
The core of the legal debate lies in interpreting several sections of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:
- Section 2(10): Defines “driving license” as a license authorizing a person to drive a motor vehicle of any specified class or description.
- Section 2(15): Defines “gross vehicle weight” as the total weight of the vehicle and load certified by the registering authority.
- Section 2(21): Defines “light motor vehicle” (LMV) as a transport vehicle or omnibus with a gross vehicle weight not exceeding 7,500 kg, or a motor car, tractor, or road-roller with an unladen weight not exceeding 7,500 kg.
- Section 2(47): Defines “transport vehicle” as a public service vehicle, goods carriage, educational institution bus, or private service vehicle.
- Section 3: Stipulates that no person shall drive a motor vehicle without a driving license, and no person shall drive a transport vehicle unless their license specifically entitles them to do so.
- Section 10: Outlines the form and content of driving licenses, specifying different classes of vehicles.
The Court also considered various rules under the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, particularly those related to medical certificates, training syllabi, and the validity of licenses.
Arguments
Submissions on behalf of Insurance Companies:
-
Mr. Siddhartha Dave: Argued that Section 3 of the MV Act requires a specific endorsement for driving a ‘transport vehicle’, implying that a license for a ‘light motor vehicle’ is not sufficient. He highlighted that the eligibility criteria for transport vehicle licenses are more stringent, including age limits and medical requirements, to ensure road safety. He also argued that the 1994 amendment to Section 10, which merged several classes into a single ‘transport vehicle’ class, indicates 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’.
-
Mr. Jayant Bhushan: Contended that Mukund Dewangan (2017) overlooked Section 3, which mandates a separate endorsement for driving a ‘transport vehicle’. He also argued that the judgment focused on general law rather than the special provisions within the MV Act, where ‘transport vehicles’ and LMV are treated as separate categories. He stated 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.
-
Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul: 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.
-
Mr. Tushar Mehta: 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’. He also argued that the syllabuses for training drivers for ‘Non-Transport’ and ‘Transport’ vehicles are different.
-
Ms. Archana Pathak Dave: Presented a photograph of a bus weighing 7450 kg, and argued that weight should not be a determining factor for licensing. She 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.
-
Mr. P.B. Suresh: Argued that road safety is a fundamental right and that the decision in Mukund Dewangan (2017) has led to unsafe roads by permitting untrained drivers to operate transport vehicles.
-
Mr. Shivam Singh: Argued that insurance policies had ensured adequate risk coverage only when accidents were caused by vehicles for which drivers had valid licenses. The decision in Mukund Dewangan (2017) extended insurance coverage to cases where drivers with LMV licenses were driving vehicles outside their licensing permits.
Submissions on behalf of Claimants:
-
Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Mr. Devvrat, Mr. Kaustubh Shukla and Mr. Anuj Bhandari: Supported the interpretation in Mukund Dewangan (2017), contending that vehicles are differentiated according to their weight. They argued that the definition of ‘light motor vehicle’ in Section 2(21) is an inclusive definition which encompasses multiple varieties of vehicles including transport vehicles, the weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg. They also argued that the licensing system categorizes motor vehicles into Light and Heavy categories, and that the Parliament changed the nomenclature by merging the four categories into a single class of ‘Transport Vehicles’, to ‘simplify’ the licensing scheme.
-
Mr. Devvrat: Contended 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 would be required to obtain fresh licenses if Mukund Dewangan(2017) is overruled.
-
Mr. Anuj Bhandari: Submitted that for the last 34 years, licenses have been granted based on the weight of the vehicle. He 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.
-
Mr. Kaustubh Shukla: Argued that the legislature intended to demarcate vehicles depending upon the weight of the vehicle and not their description. Thus, according to him, the entire licensing scheme must take into account the weight classification, to ensure clarity.
-
Ms. Anitha Shenoy: Argued that on the strength of Mukund Dewangan(2017), the auto drivers were permitted to operate taxis and motorcabs while holding a driving license 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.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions (Insurance Companies) | Sub-Submissions (Claimants) |
|---|---|---|
| Interpretation of Section 2(21) |
|
|
| Interpretation of Section 3 |
|
|
| Licensing Requirements |
|
|
| Road Safety |
|
|
| Insurance Coverage |
|
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:
- Whether a driver holding an LMV license can operate a ‘Transport Vehicle’ without obtaining specific authorization under Section 10(2)(e) of the MV Act.
- Whether the second part of Section 3(1) overrides the definition of LMV in Section 2(21) of the MV Act, and whether the definition of LMV is unrelated to the licensing framework.
- Whether the additional eligibility criteria prescribed for ‘transport vehicles’ apply to those driving vehicles below 7,500 kgs with an LMV license.
- What is the effect of the 1994 amendment which substituted four classes under Section 10 with a single class of ‘Transport Vehicle’ in Section 10(2)(e)?
- Whether the decision in Mukund Dewangan(2017) is per incuriam for not noticing certain provisions of the MV Act and MV Rules?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether an LMV license holder can drive a transport vehicle below 7,500 kg without a separate endorsement. | Yes, a driver holding an LMV license is permitted to operate a ‘Transport Vehicle’ with a gross vehicle weight under 7,500 kg without additional authorization. |
| Whether Section 3(1) overrides the definition of LMV in Section 2(21). | No, Section 3(1) does not supersede the definition of LMV in Section 2(21). The specific requirement for transport vehicles applies to those exceeding 7,500 kg. |
| Whether additional eligibility criteria for transport vehicles apply to LMV holders driving vehicles below 7,500 kg. | No, additional eligibility criteria apply only to transport vehicles whose gross weight exceeds 7,500 kg. |
| What is the effect of the 1994 amendment to Section 10? | The amendment was intended to simplify the licensing framework and did not exclude transport vehicles of LMV class from the purview of Section 10(2)(d) and Section 2(21) of the Act. |
| Whether Mukund Dewangan(2017) is per incuriam. | No, the decision in Mukund Dewangan(2017) is not per incuriam. The Court upheld the decision with additional reasoning. |
Authorities
The Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| Ashok Gangadhar Maratha v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (1999) 6 SCC 620 | Supreme Court of India | Approved and followed. The court upheld the view that a holder of a LMV license can drive a ‘transport vehicle’, without a specific endorsement. |
| Nagashetty v United India Insurance Co., (2001) 8 SCC 56 | Supreme Court of India | Approved and followed. The 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 to it. |
| New India Assurance Company v Prabhu Lal, (2008) 1 SCC 696 | Supreme Court of India | Overruled. The Court had held that a separate endorsement was necessary to drive a Transport Vehicle even if it weighed less than 7500 kg. |
| National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Annappa Irappa Nesaria, (2008) 3 SCC 464 | Supreme Court of India | Partially Overruled. The Court had 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. The Court overruled the post-amendment position. |
| New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir, (2008) 8 SCC 253 | Supreme Court of India | Overruled. The Court held that a separate endorsement was necessary to drive a Transport Vehicle. |
| Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Angad Kol, (2009) 11 SCC 356 | Supreme Court of India | Overruled. The Court held that a driver of the mini goods carriage auto holding a LMV license, need not have a license for a Transport Vehicle. |
| S. Iyyapan v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd, (2013) 7 SCC 62 | Supreme Court of India | Approved and followed. The court held that a person holding a LMV License was entitled to drive a Mahindra Maxi Cab. |
| Kulwant Singh v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, (2015) 2 SCC 186 | Supreme Court of India | Approved and followed. The court held that the insurance company could not avoid liability merely because, the driver did not have an endorsement to drive a commercial vehicle. |
| Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2017) 14 SCC 663 | Supreme Court of India | Upheld. The court upheld the decision with additional reasoning. |
| National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 | Supreme Court of India | Cited. The Court noted that compensation must not be denied for minor technical breaches of the licensing conditions. |
| Savelife Foundation v. Union of India, (2016) 7 SCC 194 | Supreme Court of India | Cited. The Court noted that the Right to life under Article 21 also includes the right to safety of persons travelling on the road. |
| Institute of Patent Agents & Ors. v. Joseph Lockwood, 1894 A.C. 347 | House of Lords | Cited. The Court noted that one provision must give way to the other only when reconciliation is not possible. |
| Sultana Begum v. Prem Chand Jain, 1997 (1) SCC 373 | Supreme Court of India | Cited. The Court noted the principles of harmonious construction of statutes. |
| Life Insurance Corporation v. Escorts, 1986 (2) SCC 264 | Supreme Court of India | Cited. The Court noted that the Form cannot control the Act, the Rules or the directions. |
| Morelle Ld. V Wakeling, (1955) 2 QB 379 | Court of Appeal | Cited. The Court noted that a decision is per incuriam when the court has acted in ignorance of a previous decision or of a statute. |
| Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar, AIR 1955 SC 661 | Supreme Court of India | Cited. The Court noted that the Supreme Court remains free to reconsider its judgments in appropriate cases. |
| Mamleshwar Prasad v. Kanhaiya Lal, (1975) 2 SCC 232 | Supreme Court of India | Cited. The Court noted that a judgment may not have the sway of binding precedents where by obvious inadvertence or oversight a judgment fails to notice a plain statutory provision. |
| A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, (1988) 2 SCC 602 | Supreme Court of India | Cited. The Court noted that per incuriam decisions are those given in ignorance of some inconsistent statutory provision or of some authority binding on the court. |
| MCD v Gurnam Kaur, (1989) 1 SCC 101 | Supreme Court of India | Cited. The Court noted that a decision should be treated as given per incuriam when it is given in ignorance of the terms of a statute. |
| Punjab Land Development & Reclamation Corpn. Ltd. v. Labour Court, (1990) 3 SCC 682 | Supreme Court of India | Cited. The Court noted that the Supreme Court can lay down the law afresh, if two or more of its earlier judgments cannot stand together. |
| N.Bhargavan Pillai v. State of Kerala, (2004) 13 SCC 217 | Supreme Court of India | Cited. The Court noted that a judgment cannot be treated as a binding precedent, if it fails to notice a specific statutory bar. |
| State of M.P. v. Narmada Bachao Andolan, (2011) 7 SCC 639 | Supreme Court of India | Cited. The Court reiterated that “per incuriam” are those decisions given in ignorance or forgetfulness of some statutory provision or authority binding on the court. |
| Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd. v. Jindal Exports Ltd., (2001) 6 SCC 356 | Supreme Court of India | Cited. The Court noted that 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. |
| State of Bihar v. Kalika Kuer, (2003) 5 SCC 448 | Supreme Court of India | Cited. The Court noted that the easy course of saying that earlier decision was rendered per incuriam is not permissible. |
| Sundeep Kumar Bafna v. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 16 SCC 623 | Supreme Court of India | Cited. The Court expanded the definition of per incuriam in the Indian context. |
| Shah Faesal v. Union of India, (2020) 4 SCC 1 | Supreme Court of India | Cited. The Court reiterated that the principle of per incuriam only applies on the ratio of the case. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Insurance companies argued that a separate endorsement is needed for driving a transport vehicle. | The Court held that a separate endorsement is not needed for driving a transport vehicle if the gross vehicle weight is under 7,500 kg and the driver possesses a valid LMV license. |
| Insurance companies argued that Section 3 of the MV Act mandates a separate license for transport vehicles. | The Court clarified that Section 3 must be read with Section 2(21) and the specific requirement applies to transport vehicles over 7,500 kg. |
| Claimants argued that the definition of LMV includes transport vehicles below 7,500 kg. | The Court agreed with the claimants, stating that the definition of LMV includes transport vehicles below 7,500 kg. |
| Claimants argued that the licensing system is based on weight classification. | The Court agreed that the licensing system is based on weight classification for LMV and transport vehicles. |
| Insurance companies argued that the 1994 amendment created a separate class for transport vehicles. | The Court clarified that the 1994 amendment was intended to simplify the licensing process and did not exclude LMV from the purview of the definition of transport vehicles. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- Ashok Gangadhar Maratha v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. [CITATION]: The Court approved and followed this decision, upholding the view that an LMV license holder can drive a transport vehicle without a separate endorsement.
- Nagashetty v United India Insurance Co. [CITATION]: The Court approved and followed this decision, noting that a person with a valid license for a vehicle category does not become unauthorized merely by attaching a trailer.
- New India Assurance Company v Prabhu Lal [CITATION]: The Court overruled this decision, which had held that a separate endorsement was necessary for driving a transport vehicle.
- National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Annappa Irappa Nesaria [CITATION]: The Court partially overruled this decision, clarifying that the position remains the same even post the 1994 amendment.
- New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir [CITATION]: The Court overruled this decision, which had held that a separate endorsement was necessary to drive a transport vehicle.
- Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Angad Kol [CITATION]: The Court overruled this decision, which had held that a separate endorsement was needed for a transport vehicle.
- S. Iyyapan v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd [CITATION]: The Court approved and followed this decision, which held that an LMV license holder could drive a Maxi Cab used as a taxi.
- Kulwant Singh v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd [CITATION]: The Court approved and followed this decision, which held that an insurance company could not avoid liability because a driver did not have a commercial vehicle endorsement.
- Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. [CITATION]: The Court upheld this decision, stating that it was not per incuriam, and provided additional reasoning.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by several key factors:
-
Harmonious Interpretation: The Court emphasized the need to interpret the MV Act and MV Rules harmoniously, ensuring that no provision is rendered useless. It noted that the definition of LMV in Section 2(21) must be given its full effect.
-
Legislative Intent: The Court found that the 1994 amendment was intended to simplify the licensing process, not to create a separate class for all transport vehicles. The term ‘Transport Vehicle’ primarily targets vehicles exceeding 7,500 kgs, for the purpose of license regime.
-
Practical Outcomes: The Court sought to avoid interpretations that would lead to illogical or impractical outcomes, such as requiring drivers of light transport vehicles to undergo training for heavy vehicles.
-
Livelihood Concerns: The Court considered the impact of its decision on the livelihood of drivers who operate transport vehicles below 7,500 kg with LMV licenses.
-
Lack of Empirical Data: The Court noted the absence of empirical data showing that LMV license holders driving transport vehicles below 7,500 kg are a significant cause of road accidents.
-
Road Safety: The Court acknowledged that road safety is a crucial objective but clarified that the additional requirements for transport vehicles are primarily for medium and heavy vehicles.
Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Harmonious Interpretation | 25% |
| Legislative Intent | 20% |
| Practical Outcomes | 20% |
| Livelihood Concerns | 15% |
| Lack of Empirical Data | 10% |
| Road Safety | 10% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment provides much-needed clarity on the driving license requirements for light motor vehicles and transport vehicles. It affirms that a person holding a valid LMV license can legally drive a transport vehicle with a gross vehicle weight not exceeding 7,500 kg, without requiring a separate endorsement. This decision upholds the principle of harmonious interpretation and ensures that the licensing system remains practical and aligned with the legislative intent. The Court’s analysis of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and related rules will have significant implications for drivers, insurance companies, and road safety regulations across the country. The Court has also clarified the position on the authorities, which were in conflict with each other.