Can A Holder Of LMV License Drive A 'Transport Vehicle' Of Unladen Weight Less Than 7500 Kgs? Supreme Court Reserves Judgement

The Supreme Court today (August 21) reserved its judgement on the issue of whether a person holding a driving license in respect of a “light motor vehicle” (LMV), could on the strength of that license, be entitled to drive a “transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class” having unladen weight not exceeding 7500 kg.

The 5 Judge Constitution Bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud comprising Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice PS Narasimha, Justice Pankaj Mithal, and Justice Manoj Misra was hearing the reference issue. 

At the outset, Attorney General for India R Venkataramani informed the bench that the deliberations on the possible policy changes relating to relevant amendments in the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (MVA) were almost complete with State Governments on the present issue. 

It may be noted that previously, the Court urged the AG to consider bringing appropriate legislative amendments to strike a balance between the livelihood issue and road safety concerns.

The Court today proceeded to hear the remaining aspects of the part-heard matter. During the hearing, the CJI pointed out that the Act of 1988 specifies additional requirements to be fulfilled by a driver driving a transport vehicle as defined under S. 2(47). However, if an LMV is being used as a transport vehicle then conditions stipulated for LMV licensing would only apply. This created ambiguity as to the interpretation of the conditions based on the weight of vehicles and the purpose of use. 

"All transport vehicles are not LMVs right? So if you are driving another transport vehicle other than the vehicle which falls under S.2(21), then you have to fulfill the additional requirements. But if a transport vehicle which you are driving is an LMV within the meaning of S. 2(21) then the conditions which you have to fulfill are those of an LMV for obtaining a license, not of a transport vehicle. There is a little bit of an ambiguity here," CJI said.

S. 2(21) defines LMV to mean a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road-roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed 7500 kilograms. 

A Transport Vehicle is defined under S. 2(47) as a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle. It may be noted that Chapter 5 titled 'Control of Transport Vehicles' of the MVA 1988 details upon additional permits and conditions for driving a transport vehicle.

Referring to S. 10(dealing with license) of the MVA 1988, the CJI analyzed that the distinct reference of LMV and Transport Vehicle was probably done with the intention to categorize transport vehicles into two types (1) those transport vehicles below 7500 Kgs which will be considered as LMV and (2) those vehicles weighing beyond 7500 Kgs which will be considered as 'Transport Vehicles'.

"Therefore, when we see S.10, it includes LMV and it includes transport vehicle...if transport vehicles are substituted with LMVs, why did that provision mention both separately? The transport vehicle which is within the weight of 7500 Kgs is an LMV. So, the reason why they have mentioned transport vehicle here in S.10, is that these entries cover those which are not LMVs" 

S. 10 of the MVA 1988 provides the 'Form and Contents of Licenses to Drive'. Subclause 2 provides that any driving or learner's license shall expressly entitle the holder of the license to drive a motor vehicle belonging to one or more of the following types of vehicles - (a) motorcycle without gear; (b) motorcycle with gear; (c) invalid carriage; (d) light motor vehicle; (e) transport vehicle; (i) road-roller; (j) motor vehicle of a specified description

The CJI then pointed to the possibility that if one is driving a transport vehicle which is an LMV, then s/he doesn't have to fulfill the other conditions for a transport vehicle. 

The Counsel appearing for one of the intervenors agreeing to the same explained any LMV which is used for the purpose of transportation commercially would therefore be understood as a transport vehicle. He illustrated this by giving the example of bikes used by Ola and Uber driving applications for transporting goods or persons. Therefore in such case, the driver should not be required to fulfill other requirements of heavy motor vehicles used for transportation. 

Picking from here, the CJI asked if the intention of the legislation was that the enhanced requirements for driving a transport vehicle are only meant for those vehicles where the laden weight is more than 7500 Kgs.

The Counsel pointed that through the 1994 amendment to the Motor Vehicles Act, the addition of the term 'transport vehicle' under s.10 was to include both heavy weight and medium weight vehicles. 

Justice Roy weighed in to ask if the degree of skill required for driving an LMV depends on the nature of the passengers being driven

"You acquire a license to certify that you are capable of driving a particular transport vehicle. Now if the vehicle that you are driving by yourself, or you some family members, or some passengers taken the vehicle for hire, the degree of skills that you need to drive, would be the same for each category of the goods or passengers that you are carrying, right......can the degree of skill needed be different when you are driving by self, or taking passenger or your family?" 

Counsel answered that the nature of the passenger been carried would not determine the driver's skills. The Counsel stressed that what matters is the need for the driver to fulfil certain benchmark evaluations and ensure that the driving is done safely irrespective of whoever is there as a passenger. 

" I will be hazardous on road if I don't know how to drive. Doesn't matter if my family is sitting there or if Iam taking the vehicle for hire. My skills required would have to be the same. There is a bench mark which I have to cross." 

During the hearing the Counsel representing a union of 2000 cab drivers urged to Court to consider the following aspects: (1) in the event that the Court holds that a separate endorsement is required for driving transport vehicles other than LMV license, a retrospective application of the decision would adversely effect the livelihood of cab drivers; (2) In the alternative, the cab drivers seek a sufficient time to transition from LMV license to additional requirements; (3) states should ensure that there be adequate infrastructure to process the new license requirements within a specified timeline. 

Background 

The issue of whether a person holding a driving license in respect of a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) could on the strength of that license drive a transport vehicle having an unladen weight not exceeding 7500 kgs was dealt with in the judgement Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2017) 14 SCC 663. In this case, a 3-judge Bench comprising Justice Amitava Roy, Justice Arun Mishra, and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul held that a separate endorsement in the "Light Motor Vehicle" driving licence was not required to drive a transport vehicle having unladen weight below 7500 kgs. Thus, a person holding an LMV driving licence was entitled to drive a "transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class" having an unladen weight not exceeding 7500 kgs. In 2022, the dictum in Mukund Dewangan was doubted by a coordinate bench and the matter was referred to a 5-judge bench. 

During a previous hearing hearing, Justice Hrishikesh Roy highlighted the importance of 'livelihood' and emphasized that any rules or regulations should factor in the impact on people's means of earning a living. Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud further underscored this point, emphasizing the need to consider the consequences for people, especially given the potential impact on the livelihoods of thousands of individuals who operate commercial vehicles across the nation, as seen in the Mukul Dewangan judgment.

The CJI also stated that the decision in the Mukul Dewangan had held the field for over six years now and any change in the position of law would have a serious impact on many. He added–

"The Government can also take a call on what is the actual impact of the law on the ground over the last six years. If the consequences are such that it does not pose any danger to road safety and protects the right to livelihood etc. or you may have some modifications in the future – give some provision that in the next five years you must bring your license is in conformity. You may have a variety of options open to us which we as a court do not have open to us."

Ultimately, the court decided that it would be necessary for the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways to have a fresh look at the matter.

Case Details : M/S. BAJAJ ALLIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. v. RAMBHA DEVI & ORS. | Civil Appeal No(s).841/2018