2013 (5) TMI 965 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether Jugaad is a vehicle under the Act, and in case, it is a motor vehicle under Section 2(28) of the Act, whether such Jugaad is required to be insured and registered before it is permitted to ply on the road and whether the driver of Jugaad must compulsorily have a driving licence - Originally this petition had been filed challenging the judgment and order of the Rajasthan High Court. wherein the complete liability of providing compensation in a vehicular accident had been fixed upon the appellant-Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the RSRTC ), while unfastening the liability of the driver and the owner of the vehicle, known as Jugaad , under the provisions of Act. HELD THAT - The Jugaad is covered in the definition of the motor vehicle under Section 2(28) of the Act, the statutory authorities cannot escape from their duty to enforce the law and restrain the plying of Jugaad . The statutory authorities must ensure that Jugaad can be plied only after meeting the requirements of the Act. The same has become a menace to public safety as they are causing a very large number of accidents. Jugaads are not insured and the owners of the Jugaad generally do not have the financial capacity to pay compensation to persons who suffer disablement and to dependents of those, who lose life. Thus, considering the gravity of the circumstances, the statutory authorities must give strict adherence to the circular by the Central Government. court clarify that it is open to the statutory authorities to make exemptions by issuing a notification/circular specifically if such a vehicle is exclusively used for agricultural purposes but for that sufficient specifications have to be provided so that it cannot be used for commercial purposes.

Issues Involved:
1. Liability of compensation in a vehicular accident.
2. Classification of 'Jugaad' as a motor vehicle under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
3. Requirement for registration, insurance, and driving license for 'Jugaad'.
4. Enforcement of statutory provisions by State authorities.
5. Judicial authority to issue legislative-like directions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Liability of Compensation in a Vehicular Accident:
The petition challenged the Rajasthan High Court's decision, which fixed the entire liability of compensation on the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (RSRTC) while absolving the driver and owner of the 'Jugaad'. The Supreme Court did not delve into the issue of compensation but focused on the classification and regulatory requirements of 'Jugaad'.

2. Classification of 'Jugaad' as a Motor Vehicle:
The primary issue raised was whether 'Jugaad' qualifies as a motor vehicle under Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Supreme Court referred to the Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport, and Highways' circular, which clarified that 'Jugaad' is indeed a motor vehicle as per the Act. This classification implies that 'Jugaad' must adhere to all statutory requirements applicable to motor vehicles, including registration and insurance.

3. Requirement for Registration, Insurance, and Driving License for 'Jugaad':
The Court emphasized that 'Jugaad' must be registered, insured, and driven by a licensed driver. It cited various provisions of the Act, such as Section 3 (necessity for driving license), Section 56 (certificate of fitness), and Section 146 (insurance requirement). The Court noted that the lack of compliance with these provisions poses significant public safety risks, as 'Jugaads' are often involved in accidents and their owners typically lack the financial capacity to compensate victims.

4. Enforcement of Statutory Provisions by State Authorities:
The Court acknowledged the submissions from various State authorities, some of which argued that 'Jugaad' did not fall under the definition of a motor vehicle. However, the Court reiterated that enforcement of the Act's provisions is within the jurisdiction of State Governments and directed strict compliance with the Central Government's circular. The Court noted that some States, like Rajasthan, had already decided to prohibit 'Jugaad' from plying on roads unless used exclusively for agricultural purposes.

5. Judicial Authority to Issue Legislative-like Directions:
The Court addressed concerns about judicial overreach and the doctrine of separation of powers. It cited precedents where the judiciary issued directions to fill legislative vacuums, emphasizing that such actions are permissible to ensure the enforcement of fundamental rights and statutory provisions. The Court referenced cases like Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan and Vineet Narain v. Union of India to illustrate its authority to issue interim directions until appropriate legislation is enacted.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that 'Jugaad' is a motor vehicle under Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and must comply with all relevant statutory requirements. The Court directed statutory authorities to enforce these provisions strictly and allowed for exemptions if 'Jugaad' is used exclusively for agricultural purposes, provided sufficient specifications are established to prevent its commercial use. The matter was closed with these directions.

← Previous Next →