Supreme Court clarifies the validity of Light Motor Vehicle Licenses for Transport Vehicles: Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Rambha Devi & Ors. (2024) INSC 840 (6 November 2024)

Date of the Judgment: 6 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 Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) license legally drive a transport vehicle? The Supreme Court of India has addressed this crucial question, clarifying the extent to which LMV licenses are valid for operating transport vehicles. This judgment settles a long-standing debate, impacting numerous drivers and insurance claims across the country. The five-judge bench, led by Chief Justice Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, has provided a definitive interpretation of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and its associated rules.

Case Background

The case originated from a series of appeals and special leave petitions concerning the interpretation of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) and the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (MV Rules). The core issue was whether a person holding a license for a ‘Light Motor Vehicle’ class could drive a ‘Transport Vehicle’ without a specific endorsement, provided the ‘Gross Vehicle Weight’ of the vehicle did not exceed 7,500 kgs. This question arose due to conflicting interpretations by various High Courts and even within the Supreme Court itself.

The matter was initially referred to a three-judge bench following conflicting views in eight different judgments. The three-judge bench in Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2017) concluded that a separate endorsement was not needed for driving a transport vehicle if it fell under the Light Motor Vehicle category (below 7,500 kgs). However, this decision was later questioned, leading to the present five-judge bench referral.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Initially, a two-judge bench in Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2016) noticed conflicting views in eight different judgments and referred the matter to a three-judge bench. The three-judge bench in Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2017) concluded that a separate endorsement was not needed for driving a transport vehicle if it fell under the Light Motor Vehicle category (below 7,500 kgs). However, a two-judge bench in M/s. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi & Ors. (2018) noted that certain important provisions of the MV Act and MV Rules were not considered in the 2017 judgment. This led to a referral to a three-judge bench, which then referred the matter to a five-judge Constitution Bench for a conclusive decision.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation of the following sections of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and related rules:

• Section 2(10): Defines “driving license” as the 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” as a transport vehicle or omnibus with a gross vehicle weight not exceeding 7,500 kilograms, or a motorcar, tractor, or road-roller with an unladen weight not exceeding 7,500 kilograms.

  “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;”

• Section 2(47): Defines “transport vehicle” as a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus, or a private service vehicle.

  “transport vehicle” means a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle;”

• Section 3: Stipulates the necessity of a driving license to drive a motor vehicle and specifically mentions that no person shall drive a transport vehicle unless their license specifically entitles them to do so.

  “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 under sub -section (2) of section 75] unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do.”

• Section 4: Sets the age limits for driving motor vehicles, with a minimum age of 18 years for motor vehicles and 20 years for transport vehicles.
• Section 7: Restricts the grant of learner’s licenses for transport vehicles unless the applicant has held a driving license for a light motor vehicle for at least one year.
• Section 8: Deals with the grant of learner’s licenses and mandates a medical certificate for transport vehicles.
• Section 9: Outlines the procedure for the grant of driving licenses, including the requirement of a driving certificate from a driving school for transport vehicles.
• Section 10: Specifies the form and contents of driving licenses, listing different classes of motor vehicles. The 1994 amendment merged four classes into a single class of ‘transport vehicle’ under Section 10(2)(e).

  (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) motor cycle without gear;
  (b) motor cycle with gear;
  (c) invalid carriage;
  (d) light motor vehicle;
  (e) transport vehicle;
  (f) deleted;
  (g) deleted;
  (h) deleted;
  (i) road-roller;
  (j) motor vehicle of a specified description.

• Section 14: Specifies the validity period of driving licenses, with different durations for transport and non-transport vehicles.
• Section 15: Deals with the renewal of driving licenses, requiring a medical certificate for transport vehicles and for those above 40 years of age.
• Section 180 and 181: Specifies penalties for allowing unauthorized persons to drive vehicles and for driving vehicles in contravention of Section 3 or 4.
• Rule 5 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989: Mandates a medical certificate for transport vehicles, while only a self-declaration is sufficient for non-transport vehicles.
• Rule 10 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989: Details the application process for a learner’s license, requiring a medical certificate for transport vehicles.
• Rule 17(1)(b) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989: Stipulates that any application for adding a class of “Transport Vehicle” to a Driving License must be accompanied by a Driving Certificate.
• Rule 31 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989: Provides for a different syllabus and duration of training for transport and non-transport vehicles.

Arguments

Submissions on behalf of Insurance Companies:

• The insurance companies argued that Section 3 of the MV Act mandates a separate endorsement for driving a ‘transport vehicle’, and that the definition of ‘light motor vehicle’ in Section 2(21) should not override this specific requirement.

  They contended that the eligibility criteria for obtaining a license for transport vehicles are more stringent than for light motor vehicles, including higher age limits, mandatory medical certificates, and longer training periods.

• It was argued that the 1994 amendment to Section 10, which merged four classes of vehicles into a single class of ‘transport vehicle’, 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’.

• The counsel emphasized that licensing under the MV Act is linked to the intended ‘use’ of the vehicle rather than its weight. They pointed 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’.

• The Solicitor General argued that the definition under Section 2(21), which includes transport vehicles, is for a different regime set under Section 113 and 115 of the MV Act, which pertains to control of traffic and limits of weight.

• It was also argued that the decision in Mukund Dewangan (2017) overlooked Section 3, which mandates a separate endorsement for driving a ‘transport vehicle’, and focused on general law rather than the special provisions within the MV Act.

• Concerns were raised that the decision in Mukund Dewangan (2017) has led to unsafe roads by permitting untrained drivers to operate transport vehicles.

Submissions on behalf of Claimants:

• The claimants argued that the vehicles under the MV Act are differentiated according to their weight, and the definition of ‘light motor vehicle’ in Section 2(21) is inclusive, encompassing multiple varieties of vehicles, including transport vehicles, the weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg.

  They contended that the licensing system under the MV Act categorizes motor vehicles into two primary groups: Light and Heavy categories (LMV and HMV respectively).

• It was argued that the 1994 amendments to the MV Act clubbed medium and heavy vehicles into a single classification of “transport vehicles,” implying that “transport vehicles” under the MV Act meant medium and heavy vehicles.

• The counsel argued that the legislature intended to demarcate vehicles depending upon the weight of the vehicle and not their description.

• It was also submitted that the decision in Mukund Dewangan (2017) has allowed auto drivers to operate taxis and motorcabs while holding a driving license for LMV for the past 6 years, and a reconsideration would impact their livelihood under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. 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.
2. 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?
3. 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.
4. 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)?
5. 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

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Ashok Gangadhar Maratha v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. [CITATION]: The Court approved this judgment, noting that it correctly stated that a light motor vehicle would include a light goods vehicle.
• Nagashetty v United India Insurance Co [CITATION]: The Court approved this judgment, holding that a vehicle does not become unauthorized merely because a trailer is attached.
• New India Assurance Company v Prabhu Lal [CITATION]: The Court overruled this judgment, stating that it failed to consider the definition of LMV in Section 2(21) and wrongly distinguished Ashok Gangadhar Maratha.
• National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Annappa Irappa Nesaria [CITATION]: The Court partially overruled this judgment, clarifying that the position remains the same even post-amendment for vehicles within the LMV category.
• New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir [CITATION]: The Court overruled this judgment, noting that it did not consider the definition of LMV in Section 2(21).
• Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Angad Kol [CITATION]: The Court overruled this judgment, stating that it wrongly relied on Prabhu Lal and failed to consider the definition of LMV.
• S. Iyyapan v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd [CITATION]: The Court approved this judgment, holding that a driver with a valid LMV license was legally competent to drive a Maxi Cab.
• Kulwant Singh v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd [CITATION]: The Court approved this judgment, stating that the insurance company could not avoid liability because the driver lacked an endorsement for a commercial vehicle.
• Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. [CITATION]: The Court upheld this judgment, stating that its core reasoning was correct, even if some provisions were not explicitly discussed.

Final Decision:

The Supreme Court ruled that a person holding a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) license is authorized to drive a transport vehicle with a gross vehicle weight not exceeding 7,500 kilograms without requiring a separate endorsement. The Court clarified that the definition of LMV in Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, includes transport vehicles that meet this weight criterion. This decision upholds the principle that the licensing framework should primarily be based on the weight of the vehicle, not solely on its classification as a transport vehicle.

Implications of the Judgment

The judgment has significant implications for drivers, insurance companies, and road safety regulations in India:

• For Drivers: Drivers holding a valid LMV license can now legally operate transport vehicles with a gross vehicle weight up to 7,500 kgs without the need for a separate endorsement. This eliminates the ambiguity that previously existed and provides clarity on licensing requirements.
• For Insurance Companies: Insurance companies can no longer deny claims based solely on the argument that the driver of a transport vehicle below 7,500 kgs did not possess a separate endorsement. This ensures that genuine claims are not rejected on technicalities.
• For Road Safety: The judgment clarifies that drivers of vehicles below 7,500 kgs are not required to undergo additional training or obtain separate endorsements, provided they possess a valid LMV license. This allows for a more practical approach to licensing while ensuring that safety standards are maintained.
• For Licensing Authorities: Licensing authorities must now align their practices with the Supreme Court’s interpretation, ensuring that LMV licenses are recognized as valid for driving transport vehicles below the specified weight limit.

Flowchart of the Court’s Reasoning