TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (7) TMI 1461
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dv., Dr. (Mrs. ) Vipin Gupta, AOR, Mr. P. K. Jain, AOR, Mr. Jay Kishor Singh, AOR, Mr. Raj Singh Rana, AOR, Mr. Uday B. Dube, AOR, Mr. Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, AOR, Mr. Akshat Shrivastava, AOR, Mr. Arup Banerjee, AOR, Mr. Rajinder Mathur, AOR, Mr. Tanuj Bagga, Adv., Mr. Sumit Attri, AOR, Mr. Manjunath Meled, Adv., Ms. Vijayalaxmi, V. Adv., Mr. Anil Kumar, AOR. For the Respondent : Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, AOR, Ms. Meenakshi Midha, Adv., Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri, AOR, for M/s. Law Associates, AOR, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, AOR, Mr. G. Balaji, AOR, Mr. C. K. Rai, AOR, Mr. Varinder Kumar Sharma, AOR, Ms. Meera Mathur, AOR, Dr. Meera Agarwal, AOR, Mr. Anis Ahmed Khan, AOR, Mr. Viresh B. Saharya, AOR, Mr. M. K. Dua, AOR, Mr. Javed Mahmud Rao, AOR, Mr. Nand Ram, Adv., Mr. Manish P. Singh, Adv., Mr. Ajay Singh, Adv., Dr. Nafis A. Siddiqui, AOR, Ms. Nidhi, AOR, Mr. Garvesh Kabra, AOR, Mr. Anish Kumar Gupta, AOR, Mr. R.K. Rajwanshi, Adv., Mr. Chandra Shekhar Suman, Adv., Ms. Deep Shikha Bharti, Adv., Ms. Sakshi Mittal, AOR, Ms. Neerja Sachdeva, Adv., Ms. Meera Mathur, Adv. JUDGMENT ARUN MISHRA, J. 1. In the reference, the main question involved is whether a driver who is having a lice....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of which does not exceed 7500 kg. and holder of a licence to drive the class of "light motor vehicle" as provided in Section 10(2)(d) would be competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the "gross vehicle weight" of which does not exceed 7500 kgs. or a motor car or tractor or road roller, the "unladen weight" of which does not exceed 7500 kgs.? 3. What is the effect of the amendment made by virtue of Act No. 54 of 1994 w.e.f. 14.11.1994 while substituting Clauses (e) to (h) of Section 10(2) which contained "medium goods vehicle", "medium passenger motor vehicle", "heavy goods vehicle" and "heavy passenger motor vehicle" by "transport vehicle"? Whether insertion of expression 'transport vehicle' Under Section 10(2)(e) is related to said substituted classes only or it also excluded transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class from the purview of Sections 10(2)(d) and 2(41) of the Act? 4. What is the effect of Amendment of Form 4 as to the operation of the provisions contained in Section 10 as amended in the year 1994 and whether the procedure to obtain the driving licence for transport vehicle of the class of "Light Motor Vehicle" has been changed? There is a ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is extracted hereunder: 10. Form and contents of licences to drive. -- (1) Every learner's licence and driving licence, except a driving licence issued Under Section 18, shall be in such form and shall contain such information as may be prescribed by the Central Government. (2) A learner's licence or, as the case may be, driving licence shall also be expressed as entitling the holder to drive a motor vehicle of one or more of the following classes, namely: (a) motorcycle without gear; (b) motorcycle with gear; (c) invalid carriage; (d) light motor vehicle; (e) medium goods vehicle; (f) medium passenger motor vehicle; (g) heavy goods vehicle; (h) heavy passenger motor vehicle; (i) roadroller; (j) motor vehicle of a specified description. It is apparent from the pre-amended provision which existed before the amendment made in the year 1994 that class or description of the vehicle for which licence used to be issued were categorized inter alia as light motor vehicle, medium goods vehicle, medium passenger motor vehicle, heavy goods vehicle, heavy passenger motor vehicle and motor vehicle of a specified description. Transport vehicle was not a separate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es 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 Co. 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 compensation; (j) punishment in case of certain offences is made stringent; (k) a new pre-determined formula for payment of compensation to road accident victims on the basis of age/income, which is more liberal and rational. 5. The Law Commission in its 119th Report had recommended that every application for a claim be made to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred or to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....grams; (21) "light motor vehicle" means 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; (23) "medium goods vehicle" means any goods carriage other than a light motor vehicle or a heavy goods vehicle; (24) "medium passenger motor vehicle" means any public service vehicle or private service vehicle, or educational institution bus other than a motor cycle, invalid carriage, light motor vehicle or heavy passenger motor vehicle; 9. The definition of 'gross vehicle weight' and 'unladen weight' are also significant as the expression finds a place in the aforesaid definitions. Said definitions in Sections 2(15) and 2(48) are as under: 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(48) "unladen weight" means the weight of a vehicle or trailer including all equipments ordinarily used with the vehicle or trailer when working, but excluding the weight of a driver or attendant; and where alt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ded in Section 9(2). The applicant has to pass a test also, as provided in Section 9(3). It is further provided in Section 9(4) that a person applying for the licence to drive a transport vehicle shall possess such minimum educational qualification as may be prescribed by the Central Government. 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 licence had been revoked earlier. 13. Prior to amendment in 1994 licence for transport vehicle was clearly covered as per Section 10(2) in five categories, i.e., Section 10(2)(d) light motor vehicle, Section 10(2)(e) medium goods vehicle, Section 10(2)(f) medium passenger motor vehicle, Section 10(2)(g) heavy goods vehicle and Section 10(2)(h) heavy passenger motor vehicle. The licence for light motor vehicle' has been provided in Section 10(2)(d). The expression 'transport vehicle' has been inserted by virtue of Amendment Act 54/1994 in Section 10(2)(e) after deleting four categories or classes of vehicles, i.e. medium goods vehicle, medium passenger motor vehicle, heavy goods vehicle, and heavy pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s any public service vehicle or private service vehicle or educational institution bus other than a motorcycle, invalid carriage, light motor vehicle or heavy passenger motor vehicle. Thus, the newly incorporated expression 'transport vehicle' in Section 10(2)(e) would include only the vehicles of the category as defined in Section 2(16) - heavy goods vehicle, Section 2(17) - heavy passenger motor vehicle, Section 2(23) - medium goods vehicle and Section 2(24) medium passenger motor vehicle, and would not include the light motor vehicle' which means transport vehicle also of the weight specified in Section 2(21). 15. Form 4 has led to some of the divergent views of this Court which was prevalent before 28.3.2001 prescribed Under Rule 14 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1989'). The relevant portion is extracted hereunder: "FORM 4 [See Rule 14] Form of application for licence to drive a motor vehicle To, The Licensing Authority, ......................................... Passport size photographs I apply for a licence to e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pply for a licence to enable me to drive vehicles of the following description- (a) Motorcycle without gear (b) Motorcycle with gear (c) Invalid carriage (d) Light motor vehicle (e) Transport vehicle (f) Medium passenger motor vehicle * * * (i) Roadroller (j) Motor vehicle of the following description. * * * * * * * &nbs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at a person is required to apply for licence, only once to drive aforesaid four kinds of vehicles as per the amended provision of Section 10(2)(e) and the Form. 17. Our aforesaid conclusion is also fortified by the inclusion of Rule 8 of the 1989 Rules which provides for minimum educational qualification for driving transport vehicles to be 8th standard. The proviso to the Rule makes it clear that the said qualification shall not apply in the case of renewal of driving licence to drive a transport vehicle and/or addition of another class of transport vehicle to the driving licence already obtained before commencement of the Motor Vehicles Act, 2007. Amended Rule 8 as inserted w.e.f. 10.4.2007 is quoted below: 8. Minimum educational qualification for driving transport vehicles. - The minimum educational qualification in respect of an applicant for obtaining a licence to drive a transport vehicle shall be a pass in the eighth standard: Provided that the minimum educational qualification specified in this Rule shall not apply in the case of-- (i) renewal of a driving licence to drive a transport vehicle; or (ii) addition of another class of transport vehicle to the driving li....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....age Light motor vehicle Transport vehicle Medium passenger motor vehicle A motor vehicle of the following description: The licence to drive a motor vehicle other than transport vehicle is valid from .............. to ............. The licence to drive transport vehicle is valid from ........... to ............. Name and designation of the Authority who conducted the driving test. Signature and designation of Licencing Authority Authorisation to drive transport vehicle Number ..................... Date ...................... Authorised to drive transport vehicle with effect from ................. Badge Number ..................... Signature ................. Designation of the Licensing Authority. Name and designation of the authority who conducted the driving test. Space for addition of other classes of vehicles Number ......................... Date ..................... Also authorised to drive the following class of or description of motor vehicles- Name and designation of the Authority who conducted the driving test. Signature and designation of Licensing Authority. Date: ................ &n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ose categories. 20. Rule 17 of the Rules of 1989 provides for the addition to driving licence. The application has to be filed for addition in driving licence in Form 8 as provided in Rule 17. Rule 17 and Form 8 are extracted hereunder: 17. Addition to driving licence. - (1) An application for addition of another class or description of motor vehicle to the driving licence shall be made in Form 8 to the licensing authority and shall be accompanied from-- (a) an effective learner's licence and driving licence held by the applicant; (b) in the case of an application for addition of a transport vehicle, the driving certificate in Form 5; (c) * * * (d) appropriate fee as specified in Rule 32. (2) The provisions of Sub-section (1), Sub-section (3) and Sub-section (4) of Section 9 shall, insofar as may be, apply in relation to an application under Sub-rule (1) as they apply in relation to an application for the grant of a driving licence. "FORM 8 [See Rule 17(1)] Application for the addition of a new class of vehicle to a driving licence To, The Licensing Authority, .............................. I, Shri/Smt/Kumari ..................... hereby appl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le 81. (2) Separate application shall be made for each of the following classes of vehicles, namely-- (a) motorcycle; (b) invalid carriage; (c) light motor vehicle; (d) medium passenger motor vehicle; (e) medium goods vehicle; (f) heavy passenger motor vehicle; (g) heavy goods vehicle; (h) any other motor vehicle of a specified description. The aforesaid Rule also makes a distinction between light motor vehicle, medium passenger motor vehicle, medium goods vehicle, heavy passenger motor vehicle and heavy goods vehicles. For all types of vehicles, it is necessary that prototype of every motor vehicle qualify a test by the Vehicle Research & Development Establishment of the Ministry of Defence of the Government of India or Automotive Research Association of India as provided in Rule 126. The vehicles must conform to the provisions of the Rules made Under Section 110 of the Act. The relevant information has to be inserted as per Section 41 of the Act in the registration particulars as may be prescribed by the Central Government i.e. class of vehicle, gross vehicle weight, as well as unladen weight, are required to be mentioned in the registration particulars in Form....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce G.P. Singh, it has been observed that a statute is an edict of a legislature and the conventional way of interpreting or construing a statute is to seek the intention of its maker. The duty of the judicature is to act upon the true intention of the legislature-men's or sentential logic. If a statutory provision is open to more than one interpretation, the Court has to choose that interpretation which furthers the intention of the legislature as laid down in Venkataswamy Naidu R. v. Narasram Naraindas AIR 1966 SC 361 and District Mining Officer v. Tata Iron and Steel Co. AIR 2001 (7) SCC 358. Lord Cranworth L.C. in Jane Straford Boyse v. John T. Rossborough 10 ER 1192 (HL) has observed: "There is no possibility of mistaking midnight for noon, but at what precise moment Twilight becomes darkness is hard to determine." As observed in Muray v. Foyle Meats Ltd. (1999) 3 All ER 769, faced with such problems, the Court is also conscious of a dividing line, but Court has to be conscious not to divert its attention from the language used in the statutory provision and encourage an approach not intended by the legislature. The first and primary Rule of construction is that the intenti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng and Weaving Co. Ltd. and Ors. (2001) 4 SCC 139. To ascertain the meaning of a clause, the Court must look at the whole statute at what precedes and at what succeeds and not merely at the Clause itself as observed in Queen v. Eduljee Byramjee (1946) 3 MIA 468 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Anjana Shyam and Ors. (2007) 7 SCC 445. It was also observed that the same word by the author may mean one thing in one context and Anr. in a different context. For this reason, the same word used in different Sections of a statute or even when used at different places in the same Clause or Section of the statute may bear different meanings. The conclusion, that the language used by the legislature is plain or ambiguous can only be arrived at by studying the statute as a whole. Every word and expression which the legislature uses have to be given its proper and effective meaning, as the Legislature uses no expression without purpose and meaning. The principle that the statute must be read as a whole is equally applicable to different parts of the same section. The Section must be construed as a whole whether or not one of the parts is a saving Clause or a proviso. It is not permissible to o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... so will be legislation and not construction as held in Hansraj Gupta v. Dehra Dun-Mussoorie Electric Tramway Co. Ltd. AIR 1933 PC 63, Kamalrajan Roy v. Secretary of State AIR 1938 PC 281 and Karnataka State Financial Corporation v. N. Narsimahaiah (2008) 5 SCC 176. The court cannot supply casus omissus. 30. From the aforesaid principles, it is apparent that plain and simple meaning has to be given to Section 10(2). When the legislature has not amended the provision, we cannot re-write the definition of Section 2(21) of light motor vehicle and Section 10(2)(d) and full effect has to be given to the omission which has been made in the provisions of Section 10(2)(e) to (h), by substituting transport vehicle Under Section 10(2)(e), and plain and literal interpretation of existing provisions and amended provisions has to be made. When the legislature has not amended the aforesaid provisions it is not for the Court to legislate by making insertion in Section 10(2)(e), What has not been provided in the statute with a purpose, cannot be supplied by the courts. Court has to construe a provision and not to act as a legislature. In other words, interpretation as suggested by Insurers would ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by enacting Section 94? Surely the obligation has not been imposed in order to promote the business of the insurers engaged in the business of automobile insurance. The provision has been inserted in order to protect the members of the community travelling in vehicles or using the roads from the risk attendant upon the user of motor vehicles on the roads. The law may provide for compensation to victims of the accidents who sustain injuries in the course of an automobile accident or compensation to the dependants of the victims in the case of a fatal accident. However, such protection would remain a protection on paper unless there is a guarantee that the compensation awarded by the courts would be recoverable from the persons held liable for the consequences of the accident. A court can only pass an award or a decree. It cannot ensure that such an award or decree results in the amount awarded being actually recovered, from the person held liable who may not have the resources. The exercise undertaken by the law courts would then be an exercise in futility. And the outcome of the legal proceedings which by the very nature of things involve the time cost and money cost invested from....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch" is "infringement or violation of a promise or obligation" (See Collins English Dictionary). It is therefore abundantly clear that the insurer will have to establish that the insured is guilty of an infringement or violation of a promise that a person who is duly licensed will have to be in charge of the vehicle. The very concept of infringement or violation of the promise that the expression "breach" carries within itself induces an inference that the violation or infringement on the part of the promisor must be a wilful infringement or violation. If the insured is not at all at fault and has not done anything he should not have done or is not amiss in any respect how can it be conscientiously posited that he has committed a breach? It is only when the insured himself places the vehicle in charge of a person who does not hold a driving licence, that it can be said that he is "guilty" of the breach of the promise that the vehicle will be driven by a licensed driver. It must be established by the Insurance Co. that the breach was on the part of the insured and that it was the insured who was guilty of violating the promise or infringement of the contract. Unless the insured is at....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of the circumstances in which such a contingency occurs, the insured will not be liable under the contract of insurance. It needs to be emphasised that it is not the contract of insurance which is being interpreted. It is the statutory provision defining the conditions of exemption which is being interpreted. These must, therefore, be interpreted in the spirit in which the same have been enacted accompanied by an anxiety to ensure that the protection is not nullified by the backward looking interpretation which serves to defeat the provision rather than to fulfill its life-aim. To do otherwise would amount to nullifying the benevolent provision by reading it with a non-benevolent eye and with a mind not tuned to the purpose and philosophy of the legislation without being informed of the true goals sought to be achieved. What the legislature has given, the Court cannot deprive of by way of an exercise in interpretation when the view which renders the provision potent is equally plausible as the one which renders the provision impotent. In fact, it appears that the former view is more plausible apart from the fact that it is more desirable. When the option is between opting for a v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or the court that such violation or infringement on the part of the insured was wilful. If the insured has taken all precautions by appointing a duly licensed driver to drive the vehicle in question and it had not been established that it was the insured who allowed the vehicle to be driven by a person not duly licensed, then the insurance company cannot repudiate its statutory liability. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and Ors. (2004) 3 SCC 297, this Court has laid down that to avoid its liability towards the insured, the insurer has to prove that the former was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by duly licensed driver or by one who was not qualified to drive at the relevant time. The insurer must prove that the breach was on the part of the owner of the vehicle and burden to prove would be on them. The tribunals in interpreting the policy conditions would apply "the Rule of the main purpose" and the concept of "fundamental breach" to allow defences available to the insured Under Section 149(2) of the Act. Whether the owner has taken reasonable care, has to be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se (21) of Section 2 of the Act can apply only to a "light goods vehicle" or a "light transport vehicle". A "light motor vehicle" otherwise has to be covered by the definition of "motor vehicle" or "vehicle" as given in Clause (28) of Section 2 of the Act. A light motor vehicle cannot always mean a light goods carriage. Light motor vehicle can be a non-transport vehicle as well. No doubt about it, that in addition thereto the Court while dealing with the matter comprehensively has gone in question as to the pleadings and the evidence adduced and it was observed that since there was neither a pleading nor a permit produced on record, the vehicle remained a light motor vehicle. If we proceed on the basis of the definition itself, we reach to the same conclusion that for driving transport vehicle of light motor vehicle category, no separate endorsement is required on a licence. Even when a light motor vehicle is used for carrying goods or for hire or rewards, it becomes a transport vehicle, though it remains included in the category of light motor vehicle as per Section 2(21) of the Act. The interpretation of the definition in Ashok Gangadhar Maratha (supra), makes it clear that ligh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mmission, It was contended by the Insurance Company that the truck was a goods carriage or a transport vehicle and since the driver of the truck was holding a driving licence issued in Form 6 to drive light motor vehicle only, he was not authorised to drive transport vehicle as there was no endorsement on his driving licence authorising him to drive such transport vehicle. The aggrieved complainant approached this Court. Allowing the appeal and setting aside the order passed by the Commission, this Court held that the driver of the vehicle was holding a valid driving licence for driving a light motor vehicle and there was no material on record to show that he was disqualified from holding an effective valid licence at the time of an accident. In view of those facts, the Court held that the policy did not insist on the driver to have a licence to drive a transport vehicle by obtaining a specific endorsement. Considering the definition of "light motor vehicle" as given in Clause (21) of Section 2 of the Act, this Court held that such light motor vehicle (LMV) cannot always mean a light goods carriage. A light motor vehicle (LMV) can be a non-transport vehicle as well. The Court proce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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. 42. In the present case, all the facts were before the District Forum. It considered the assertion of the complainant and defence of the Insurance Company in the light of the relevant documentary evidence and held that it was established that the vehicle which met with an accident was a "transport vehicle". Ram Narain was having a licence to drive light motor vehicle only and there was no endorsement as required by Section 3 of the Act read with Rule 16 of the Rules and Form 6. In view of necessary documents on record, the Insurance Company was right in submitting that Ashok Gangadhar does not apply to the case on hand and the Insurance Company was not liable. 36. In our considered opinion Prabhu Lal's (supra) question has not decided correctly. The intendment and definition of the light motor vehicle which was clearly interpreted in Ashok Gangadhar Maratha (supra) in para 10 have not been taken into consideration in the correct perspective. Interpretation of Form 6 w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....medium goods vehicle and heavy goods vehicle and provision in the form at the relevant time, covered both "light passenger carriage vehicle" and "light goods carriage vehicle". The driver who had a valid driving licence to drive a light motor vehicle, therefore, was authorized to drive a light goods vehicle (transport vehicle) as well. The view taken with respect to the pre-amended position, before the amendment of Form 4 on 28.3.2001 appears to be correct for the reasons discussed by us. However, no change has been brought about by insertion of Form 4 after 28.3.2001 with respect to LMV category transport vehicle, thus, Annappa Irappa Nesaria (supra) cannot be taken to be laying down correct legal position applicable after 28.3.2001. With respect to the post-amendment legal position, the decision cannot be said to be laying down the correct law. However, this Court has rightly opined in the aforesaid case that the person holding a licence to drive "light motor vehicle" could have driven "light passenger carriage vehicle" and "light goods carriage vehicle" also. Thus, the decision is partially overruled to the aforesaid extent only. 39. In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Angad Kol ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le to be set aside. This Court has rightly held in S. Iyyapan (supra) that it was not necessary for the driver to get any endorsement in the driving licence to drive Mahindra Maxi Cab as he was authorized to drive a light motor vehicle. 41. In Kulwant Singh v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2015) 2 SCC 186, this Court has referred to the decisions in S. Iyyapan (supra) and Annappa Irappa Nesaria (supra) and has laid down that once the driver is holding a licence to drive light motor vehicle, he can drive commercial vehicle of that category. In Kulwant Singh (supra) it has been laid down thus: 8. We find that the judgments relied upon cover the issue in favour of the Appellants. In Annappa Irappa Nesaria (2008) 3 SCC 464, this Court referred to the provisions of Sections 2(21) and (23) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which are definitions of "light motor vehicle" and "medium goods vehicle" respectively and the Rules prescribing the forms for the licence i.e. Rule 14 and Form 4. It was concluded: (SCC p. 468, para 20) 20. From what has been noticed hereinbefore, it is evident that 'transport vehicle' has now been substituted for 'medium goods vehicle' and 'he....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....led with stones. He submitted that once a trailer was attached to the tractor the tractor became a transport vehicle as it was used for carriage of goods. He submitted that Section 10(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act provides for grant of licences to drive specific types of vehicles. He submitted that the driver only had a licence to drive a tractor. He submitted that the driver did not have a licence to drive a transport vehicle. He submitted that therefore it could not be said that the driver had an effective and valid driving licence to drive a goods carriage or a transport vehicle. He submitted that thus the driver did not have a valid driving licence to drive the type of vehicle he was driving. He submitted that as the driver did not have a valid driving licence to drive a transport vehicle, the Insurance Co. could not be made liable. He submitted that the High Court was right in so holding. 10. We are unable to accept the submissions of Mr. S.C. Sharda. It is an admitted fact that the driver had a valid and effective licence to drive a tractor. Undoubtedly Under Section 10, a licence is granted to drive specific categories of motor vehicles. The question is whether merely becau....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uld be used for carriage of goods. The tractor by itself could not carry goods. The goods would be carried in a trailer attached to it. That is why the extra premium for a trailer. The restriction placed on a person holding a learner's licence i.e. not to drive when goods are being carried is not there for a permanent licence-holder. Thus a permanent licence-holder having an effective/valid licence to drive a tractor can drive even when the tractor is used for carrying goods. When the policy itself so permits, the High Court was wrong in coming to the conclusion that a person having a valid driving licence to drive a tractor would become disqualified to drive the tractor if a trailer was attached to it. 43. Section 10(2)(a) to (j) lays down the classes of vehicles to be driven not a specific kind of motor vehicles in that class. If a vehicle falls into any of the categories, a licence holder holding licence to drive the class of vehicle can drive all vehicles of that particular class. No separate endorsement is to be obtained nor provided, if the vehicle falls in any of the particular classes of Section 10(2). This Court has rightly observed in Nagashetty (supra) that in case ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ehicles, etc. A combined reading of the aforestated definitions Under Section 2, reproduced hereinabove, shows that the definition of "motor vehicle" includes any mechanically propelled vehicle apt for use upon roads irrespective of the source of power and it includes a trailer. Therefore, even though a trailer is drawn by a motor vehicle, it by itself is a motor vehicle, the tractor-trailer would constitute a "goods carriage" Under Section 2(14) and consequently, a "transport vehicle" Under Section 2(47). The test to be applied in such a case is whether the vehicle is proposed to be used for transporting goods from one place to another. When a vehicle is so altered or prepared that it becomes apt for use for transporting goods, it can be stated that it is adapted for the carriage of goods. Applying the above test, we are of the view that the tractor-trailer in the present case falls Under Section 2(14) as a "goods carriage" and consequently, it falls under the definition of "transport vehicle" Under Section 2(47) of the MV Act, 1988. There is no dispute with the aforesaid proposition, that tractor if drawing a trailer with goods would constitute goods carrier and consequently wou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... licence can drive all the vehicles of the class including transport vehicles. It was pre-amended position as well the post-amended position of Form 4 as amended on 28.3.2001. Any other interpretation would be repugnant to the definition of "light motor vehicle" in Section 2(21) and the provisions of Section 10(2)(d), Rule 8 of the Rules of 1989, other provisions and also the forms which are in tune with the provisions. Even otherwise the forms never intended to exclude transport vehicles from the category of 'light motor vehicles' and for light motor vehicle, the validity period of such licence hold good and apply for the transport vehicle of such class also and the expression in Section 10(2)(e) of the Act Transport Vehicle' would include medium goods vehicle, medium passenger motor vehicle, heavy goods vehicle, heavy passenger motor vehicle which earlier found place in Section 10(2)(e) to (h) and our conclusion is fortified by the syllabus and Rules which we have discussed. Thus we answer the questions which are referred to us thus: (i) 'Light motor vehicle' as defined in Section 2(21) of the Act would include a transport vehicle as per the weight prescrib....