Motor vehicle definition covers "Jugaad" vehicles; statutory registration, insurance and licensing requirements remain enforceable.

A mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use on roads was treated as a "motor vehicle" under Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and its popular label as a "Jugaad" was held irrelevant. The article notes that such vehicles cannot lawfully ply without compliance with the statutory regime on registration, insurance, permit, fitness and a valid driving licence, and that authorities are bound to enforce these requirements to protect public safety. A narrow exemption is recognised only for vehicles used exclusively for agriculture, subject to notification or circular and adequate safeguards against commercial use.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a "Jugaad" falls within the definition of "motor vehicle" under Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; (ii) whether such vehicles can be permitted to ply without registration, insurance, permit, fitness requirements and a valid driving licence, and whether the statutory authorities are bound to enforce the Act against such vehicles, subject to a limited exemption for agricultural use.

Issue (i): Whether a "Jugaad" falls within the definition of "motor vehicle" under Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Analysis: The definition of "motor vehicle" is wide and covers any mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads, subject only to the specific exclusions in the provision. The Court applied a functional and purposive construction and held that the actual popular description of the vehicle is not decisive if it is mechanically propelled and road-adapted. On that reasoning, and drawing support from prior treatment of tractor-trailer type vehicles, the vehicle in question was treated as falling within the statutory definition.

Conclusion: "Jugaad" is a motor vehicle within Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Issue (ii): Whether such vehicles can be permitted to ply without registration, insurance, permit, fitness requirements and a valid driving licence, and whether the statutory authorities are bound to enforce the Act against such vehicles, subject to a limited exemption for agricultural use.

Analysis: The Act requires compliance with the statutory scheme relating to driving licence, registration, fitness, insurance, permits and allied controls. The Court held that statutory authorities cannot permit plying of such vehicles in disregard of these requirements, as the vehicles posed a serious public safety concern and were often uninsured. The Court also held that directions could be issued to fill a regulatory vacuum and enforce the existing legal framework. At the same time, a limited exemption was left open where the vehicle is exclusively used for agricultural purposes and is specifically regulated by notification or circular with adequate safeguards against commercial use.

Conclusion: Statutory authorities must enforce the Motor Vehicles Act against "Jugaad" vehicles and restrain their plying unless the statutory requirements are met, subject to a limited agricultural-use exemption that may be notified with adequate safeguards.

Final Conclusion: The proceeding ended with a binding clarification that "Jugaad" vehicles are covered by the motor vehicle definition and cannot be allowed to ply in violation of the statutory regime, with only a narrowly tailored agricultural-use exception left to the authorities to regulate.

Ratio Decidendi: A mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use on roads falls within the Motor Vehicles Act's definition of "motor vehicle", and the statutory authorities must enforce the mandatory regime of registration, insurance, fitness and licensing, while any regulatory gap may be addressed by court directions only as an interim measure.

---