9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 432X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... PEAL 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, 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, SLP(C) No. 9608 of 2018, SLP(C) No. 9605 of 2018, SLP(C) No. 20221 of 2023, SLP(C) No. 19921 of 2023 And SLP(C) No. 28961 of 2023 DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD CJI., HRIS ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hruv Sharma, Adv, Ms. Raveena Kinkhabwala, Adv, Mr. Raghav Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Sr. Adv, Mr. Siddharth Agarwal, Adv, Mr. Vivek Mathur, Adv, Mr. Ivan, Adv, Ms. Ayushma Awasthi, Adv, Ms. Mohini Priya, AOR, Mr. Devvrat, AOR, Mr. Devesh Kumar Agnihotri, Adv., Ms. Harshita Sharma, Adv., Ms. Swati Setia, Adv., Mr. Nitin Jain, Adv., Mr. Abhijit Banerjee, Adv., Ms. Charu Sangwan, Adv., Mr. Kaustubh Shukla, AOR, Mr. Lakshmeesh S. Kamath, Adv., Mr. Ankur Kashyap, Adv., Mr. Rahul Shyam Bhandari, Adv., Mr. Konark Tyagi, Adv., Mr. Parijat Kishore, Adv., Mr. Sanket Vashistha, Adv.,, Mr. Anuj Bhandari, AOR, Mr. Rajat Gupta, Adv., Mr. Gaurav Jain, Adv., Mrs. Disha Bhandari, Adv, Mr. Salil Paul, Adv., Mr. Sahil Paul, Adv., Ms. Manjeet Chawla, AOR, Mr. Sandeep Dayal, Adv., Ms. Kanupriya Mehta, Adv.,,, Mr. Abhishek Gola, Adv., Mr. Viresh B. Saharya, AOR,,, Mr. Anilendra Pandey, AOR, Ms. Priya Kashyap, Adv., Mr. Rajeev Kumar Ranjan, Adv., Mr. Kamlesh Vaswani, Adv., Mr. Nadeem Hussain, Adv., Mr. Brijesh Pandey, Adv.,,, Mr. Umakant Misra, Adv., Mrs. Prabhati Nayak, Adv., Mr. Debabrata Dash, Adv., Ms. Apoorva Sharma, Adv., Mr. Niranjan Sahu, AOR,,, Mr. Mallikarjun S. Mylar, Adv., Mr. Ashok Ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mants ...22 D. Issues ...26 E. Discussion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. 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. ((2016) 4 SCC 298) (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 mo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vided 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. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titioner 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." 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 8.3.2022(Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi, (2023) 4 SCC 723) 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 mat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 elicit the specific stand of the Union Government on the issue. When the matter was next heard on 13.9.2023(Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi, (2024) 1 SCC 818), 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 R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 (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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 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' 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 l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t 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 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ads by permitting untrained drivers to operate transport vehicles. It was submitted that Section 7 of the MV Act requires an individual 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 ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... )] 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 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 Maharashtra((1989) 4 SCC 378). 10.4 Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Learned Senior Counsel addition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... veral 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 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 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 Report Nos. 85(Law Commission of India, 'Claims for compensation under Chapter 8 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939'(85th Report, 1980)), 106(Law Commission of India, 'Section 103A, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939: effect of Transfer of a Motor Vehicle on Insurance' (106th Report, November, 1984)), 119(Law Commission of India, Access of Exclusive Forum for Victims of Motor Accidents under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (119th Report, February,1987)) and 149(Law Commission of India, Removing Certain Deficiencies in the Motor Vehicles Act,1988(149th Report,1994)). 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 acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 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 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icles. 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 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 2 of the MV Act. The definitions deserving scrutiny are noted below for ready 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ms 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 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, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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: 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. (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) I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mphasis 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 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 14.11.1994) MV Act (post amendment of 14.11.1994) 10. Form and contents of licences to drive.-(1) Every learner's licence and driv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 :- 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 Mot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tor; (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; (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 compens ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sport 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." 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 transport vehicle excluding E-rickshaw or E-Cart, the driving licence 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 ((2008) 3 SCC 464) (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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppear 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. 45. Significantly, Section 10(2) states that a driving license 'shall also be expressed as entitling the holder to drive a motor vehicle of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of Medical Certificate prior to attaining the age of 40 years. [Second Proviso to S.15(1)] Application Shall be accompanied by a Medical Certificate [Second Proviso to S.15(1)] (vi) Self-Declaration Of Fitness Or Medical Certificate For License Rule 5 Requirement of Self Declaration as to Physical Fitness. [Rule 5(1)] Requirement Of Medical Certificate by a Registered Medical Practitioner. [Rule 5(1)] Driving Certificates (vii) Requirement Of Obtaining Driving Certificate from a Driving School for Obtaining Driving License Sec. 9(4) No requirement of obtaining Driving Certificate from a Driving School. Application for grant of License Must be accompanied by a Driving Certificate Issued By a School or Establishment referred to in S. 12 of M.V. Act. [S.9(4)] (viii) Addition to Driving License to be supported by Driving Certificate Rule 17(1)(b) No such requirement Application for Addition of Transport Vehicle shall be accompanied by a Driving Certificate in Form 5 of the Rules. [Rule 17(1)(b)] Separate Vehicle / Separate License (ix) Necessity for Permits Sec. 66 No requirement of Permit. aPermit from the Regional, or State Transport Authority is required to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing licence shall be issued to any person to drive a vehicle of the class to which he has 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scribed 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 madeJunder 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itionally, 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 Dr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opies 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], (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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ying degrees of scrutiny are provided and the argument on behalf of Insurance 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 Jain(1997 (1) SCC 373), 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 i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9;, 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 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 'Transpor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (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" 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 mechanica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 vehic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould 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 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 fitness in respect of vehicles mentioned in {a) above One year [(ba) renewal of certificate of fitness in respect of E- rickshaw and E-cart Three years renewal of certificate of fitness in respect of vehicles covered under rule 82 of these rules One year d) fresh registration of important vehicles same period as in the case of vehicles manufactured in India having regard to the date of manufacture: [emphasis supplied] 83. The apprehension about a perso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lying 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. 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 Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate 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. 90. In Nagashetty v United India Insurance Co((2001) 8 SCC 56 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was however disputed by the insurance company who claimed that the vehicle was driven by the complainant's own 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 h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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." 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 relevan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... '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 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 Kol((2009) 11 SCC 356) (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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a), 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... temmed 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 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 wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 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'. Engl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed; 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 Bihar(AIR 1955 SC 661) 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. 101. In Mamleshwar Prasad v. Kanhaiya Lal((1975) 2 SCC 232), 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 co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... "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 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 Kerala((2004) 13 SCC 217), 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 c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t on merits." 109. In Sundeep Kumar Bafna v. State of Maharashtra((2014) 16 SCC 623), 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 India((2020) 4 SCC 1), 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 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 750 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 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 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 considera ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lible Essays in Honour of the Supreme Court of India (Oxford University Press 2000)) by 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 (Anuj Bhuwania, 'Courting the People- Public Interest Litigation in Post- Emergency India' (Cambridge University Press 2017)) 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 rewrit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll 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. 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 Asho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9;, '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. 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-rickshaws(See Rule 8A of MV Rules,'Minimum training required for driving E- rickshaw or E-cart'), or vehicles carrying hazardous goods(See Rule 9 of MV Rules, 'Educational Qualification for drivers of goods carriages carrying dangerous or hazardous goods'), 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 drivin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he 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 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 l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
