2025 (4) TMI 432 - SC - Indian Laws

Rights of driver holding an LMV license - 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 or not - 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 or not - 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 - 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) - decision in Mukund Dewangan(2017) is per incuriam for not noticing certain provisions of the MV Act and MV Rules or not? The Purpose of the MV Act 1988 - HELD THAT - The MV Act 1988 is fundamentally a social welfare legislation 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. 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 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. Brief Overview of the MV Act and MV Rules - HELD THAT - 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 - 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. Construing Section 2(21) Section 3 and Section 10 - HELD 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. Discussion on the 8 Conflicting decisions - HELD THAT - 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 1999 (9) TMI 974 - SUPREME COURT Nagashetty 2001 (8) TMI 1463 - SUPREME COURT S. Iyyapan 2013 (7) TMI 1249 - SUPREME COURT and Kulwant Singh 2014 (10) TMI 1086 - SUPREME COURT 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 2007 (11) TMI 715 - SUPREME COURT Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir 2008 (5) TMI 764 - SUPREME COURT and Angad Kol 2009 (2) TMI 935 - SUPREME COURT are overruled based on the reasoning provided in this judgment. The decision in Annappa Irappa Nesaria 2008 (1) TMI 983 - SUPREME COURT is partially overruled to the extent that the position even post-amendment would remain the same. Is Mukund Dewangan(2017) per incuriam? - HELD THAT - The decision in Mukund Dewangan (2017) was doubted for not noticing certain provisions 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. 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 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. 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 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 - A harmonious interpretation would lead to the same conclusion but fortified with some additional reasoning based on the consideration of all the relevant provisions. The overlooked provisions would not alter the eventual pronouncement. Importantly there are no 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. Impact on road safety - HELD THAT - Road safety is a serious public health issue globally. It is crucial to mention that in India over 1.7 lakh persons 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. Factors 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. Driving a motor vehicle is a complex task requiring both practical skills and theoretical knowledge. Safe driving involves not only technical vehicle control but also proficiency in various road conditions including managing speed turns and spatial awareness relative to other vehicles. Additionally handling road gradients demands skill particularly with brakes and maneuvering. Effective driving requires awareness of road signs adherence to traffic rules 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. At this juncture it is also essential to note the scheme 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 guidelines 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 ensure safety further address the speculative concerns raised on behalf of the counsel for insurance companies. Conclusion - i) A driver holding a license for Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) class under Section 10(2)(d) for vehicles with a gross 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. 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.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The Court considered the following key issues:

(i) Whether a driver holding a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) license can operate a Transport Vehicle without specific authorization under Section 10(2)(e) of the MV Act.

(ii) Whether the second part of Section 3(1) supersedes the definition of LMV in Section 2(21) of the MV Act.

(iii) Whether additional eligibility criteria for transport vehicles apply to vehicles weighing below 7,500 kg for LMV license holders.

(iv) The effect of the 1994 amendment to Section 10 of the MV Act, which introduced 'transport vehicle' as a separate class.

(v) Whether the decision in Mukund Dewangan (2017) is per incuriam for not considering certain provisions of the MV Act and MV Rules.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

(i) The Court examined the statutory framework of the MV Act and MV Rules, focusing on the definitions and licensing requirements for LMVs and Transport Vehicles. The definition of LMV in Section 2(21) includes transport vehicles with a gross vehicle weight not exceeding 7,500 kg. The Court emphasized that the licensing regime does not require a separate endorsement for transport vehicles within this weight limit.

(ii) The second part of Section 3(1) of the MV Act, which requires a specific endorsement to drive a transport vehicle, was interpreted in harmony with Section 2(21). The Court concluded that this requirement applies only to medium and heavy transport vehicles, not to those within the LMV class.

(iii) Additional eligibility criteria, such as age limits, medical certificates, and training requirements, were examined. The Court determined that these criteria apply only to medium and heavy transport vehicles, not to LMVs.

(iv) The 1994 amendment to Section 10, which introduced 'transport vehicle' as a separate class, was analyzed. The Court found that this amendment did not alter the inclusion of transport vehicles within the LMV class for those under 7,500 kg.

(v) The decision in Mukund Dewangan (2017) was scrutinized for potential per incuriam status. The Court concluded that, despite not considering some provisions, the decision was not per incuriam as it aligned with the statutory framework and legislative intent.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Court upheld the decision in Mukund Dewangan (2017), affirming that a driver with an LMV license can operate a transport vehicle within the weight limit of 7,500 kg without additional endorsement. The Court emphasized the need for a harmonious interpretation of the MV Act and MV Rules to avoid rendering any provision otiose. It concluded that the licensing regime does not require separate endorsements for transport vehicles within the LMV class, and the additional eligibility criteria apply only to medium and heavy vehicles. The decision addressed concerns about road safety and livelihood issues, emphasizing the need for legislative clarity and comprehensive amendments to the MV Act.