Holder Of LMV Driving License Doesn't Need Separate Authorisation To Drive Transport Vehicle Weighing Less Than 7500 KG : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court today (November 6) held that a person holding a driving license for a light motor vehicle(LMV) can, without any specific endorsement, drive a transport vehicle having an unladen weight of less than 7500 kg.If the gross weight of the vehicle is within 7500 kg, the driver with an LMV license can drive such a transport vehicle. The 5-judge Constitution Bench noted that no...
The Supreme Court today (November 6) held that a person holding a driving license for a light motor vehicle(LMV) can, without any specific endorsement, drive a transport vehicle having an unladen weight of less than 7500 kg.
If the gross weight of the vehicle is within 7500 kg, the driver with an LMV license can drive such a transport vehicle. The 5-judge Constitution Bench noted that no empirical data has been brought before it to show that LMV license holders driving transport vehicles are a significant cause of road accidents.
The additional eligibility requirement to drive transport vehicles will apply to only those transport vehicles which weigh more than 7500 kgs.
Adopting a harmonious interpretation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Court endorsed the decision in Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2017) 14 SCC 663. The Court also approached the issue from the perspective of livelihood issues of transport vehicle drivers.
The 5 Judge Constitution bench was considering a reference which doubted the Mukund Dewangan decision.
The Bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud comprising Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice PS Narasimha, Justice Pankaj Mithal, and Justice Manoj Misra decided the matter.
Justice Roy wrote the judgment on behalf of the bench.
Conclusions of the Judgment
1. A driver holding a license for Light Motor Vehicle for vehicles for vehicles under weight 7500 kg is permitted to operate a transport vehicle without needing additional authorisation under Section 10(2)(e) of the MV Act.
2.For licensing purposes, LMVs and transport vehicles are not entirely separate classes. An overlap exists between the two. The special eligibility requirement will however continue to apply to, inter-alia, e-carts, e-rickshaws, and vehicles carrying hazardous goods.
3. The second part of Section 3(1), which emphasises the necessity of a specific requirement to drive transport vehicle, does not supersede the definition of LMV provided in Section 2(21) of the MV Act.
4. 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 transport vehicles exceeding 7500 kgs, i.e medium goods vehicle, medium passenger vehicle, heavy goods vehicle and heavy passenger vehicles.
The Court overruled the decision in National Insurance Co.Ltd v. Annappa Irappa Nesaria to the extent it held that after the 1994 amendment, a separate endorsement is necessary for an LMV license holder to drive a transport vehicle.
The Court said that its authoritative pronouncement would prevent insurance companies from taking a technical plea to defeat a legitimate claim for compensation involving an insured vehicle weighing below 7,500 kgs driven by a person holding a driving license of a 'Light Motor Vehicle' class.
Pertinent observations from the judgment
"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."
"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 that if the transport vehicle falls under the definition of Light Motor Vehicle in Section 2(21), the additional requirements as outlined in the provisions noticed above, need not be satisfied by a person holding a driving licence for a 'Light Motor Vehicle' class. Consequently, a separate endorsement of a Transport Vehicle is not necessary as the LMV license would suffice for vehicles below 7500 kg weight. Such an interpretation would harmonize the statutory provisions by requiring the additional factors only for those Transport vehicles whose gross weight exceeds 7500 kg," the Court observed in the judgment.
"A harmonious construction of both sections (Sections 2(21) and 3) 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 'Transport Vehicles', which by virtue of their gross weight fall in the Medium and Heavy category. Such a construction would also fulfill the legislative purpose which is to ensure road safety by requiring only those individuals who intend to operate medium and heavy vehicles, to satisfy the additional licensing criteria.In our view, the age restrictions outlined in Section 4, the requirement of a medical certificate, and the criteria under Section 7 should reasonably apply only for the medium and heavy transport vehicles whose gross weight will be above 7500 Kg. Such an interpretation would fulfill the objective of the MV Act to provide compensation to victims of road accidents while maintaining a commensurate licensing regime for drivers."
"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 'Transport Vehicles', which by virtue of their gross weight fall in the Medium and Heavy category. Such a construction would also fulfill the legislative purpose which is to ensure road safety by requiring only those individuals who intend to operate medium and heavy vehicles, to satisfy the additional licensing criteria.In our view, the age restrictions outlined in Section 4, the requirement of a medical certificate, and the criteria under Section 7 should reasonably apply only for the medium and heavy transport vehicles whose gross weight will be above 7500 Kg. Such an interpretation would fulfill the objective of the MV Act to provide compensation to victims of road accidents while maintaining a commensurate licensing regime for drivers."
Background
The present issue first arose 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.
Notably, during the hearings Court pointed at the possible impact the present case may have on the issue of livelihood. It asked the Union to consider probable policy changes in the legislation to strike a balance between the livelihood issue and road safety concerns.
The Attorney General for India R Venkataramani also 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. However, since the deliberations did not yield a concrete result, the Court chose to decide the matter on merits and reserved the judgment on August 21.
Case Details : M/S. BAJAJ ALLIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. v. RAMBHA DEVI & ORS. | Civil Appeal No(s).841/2018
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 859