TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 432
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....PPEAL No. 1477 of 2018, CIVIL APPEAL 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 D....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as, AOR, Mr. Sanyat Lodha, Adv, Mr. Dhruv 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. Mal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nbsp; ...15 C. Submissions on behalf of Claimants ...22 D. Issues ...26 E. Discussion &nbs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the vehicle does not exceed 7,500 kgs?. Besides road safety, the livelihood concern of a large number 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 "t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tor or a road roller, 'unladen weight' of which does not exceed 7500 kg. and holder of a driving licence to drive class of "light motor vehicle" as provided 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ould be effective for a period of 20 years. 4. Rule 5 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") makes a medical certificate issued by a registered medical practitioner 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 Dewa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the principles laid down in Mukund Dewangan (supra) has either been paid in full or shall be paid in terms of such directions. Their statements are recorded." 7. Thus, the correctness of Mukund Dewangan(2017) is to be evaluated during this reference. At 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 rat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... held the field for nearly six years and the impact of the reversal of the decision, at this stage, particularly on the social sector, is a facet which would have to be placed in balance by the policy arm of the Government. 12. The considerations which have been flagged above do not necessarily weigh in the same direction. 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 wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an (2017) overlooked that there was a specific mention of 'transport vehicle' in Section 3 which would indicate that a license for a 'light motor vehicle' cannot be used for driving a 'transport vehicle'. 9.3. Mr. Dave further argued that the eligibility for obtaining a license for transport vehicles is more stringent than for Light Motor Vehicles. 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 regi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... distinguishes between 'Transport Vehicles' and LMV, treating them as separate categories. Mukund Dewangan (2017) erroneously subsumed 'transport vehicles' under the broader category of 'Light Motor Vehicles'. It was also contended that the requirements for obtaining a transport vehicle license are distinct and more rigorous because the drivers of transport 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 'edu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ic to the type of vehicle, necessitating separate licenses for LMV and Transport Vehicles to maintain the MV Act's regulatory coherence. 9.10. Mr. P.B. Suresh, learned Counsel representing the Intervenor - The Society Against Drunken Driving, an NGO argued that road safety is considered a fundamental right. He argued that the decision in Mukund Dewangan (2017) has led to unsafe roads 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 licens....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erging the four categories into a single class of 'Transport Vehicles', to 'simplify' the licensing scheme. 10.3. Mr. Kaustubh Shukla, Learned Counsel projected that careful reading of all the definitions in Section 2 would make it clear that the definitions were primarily bifurcated as follows: "a. 'Class of vehicle,' which mandatorily referred to weight: LMV [Sec. 2(21)] 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 intende....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ON (I) The Purpose of the MV Act, 1988 12. Prior to the enactment of the MV Act 1988, the legal framework governing motor vehicles was based on the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939 which was incorporated from the English Road Traffic Act, 1930. In January 1984, a working group was constituted to review all provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939 and to propose necessary amendments. This culminated in the enactment of the MV Act, 1988 which has since undergone several 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty" and in hit and run motor accidents; (j) provision for payment of compensation by the insurer to the extent of actual liability to the victims of motor accidents irrespective of the class of vehicles; (k) maintenance of State registers for driving licences and vehicle registration; (l) constitution of Road Safety Councils. 6. The Bill also seeks to provide for more deterrent punishment in the cases of certain offences." 14. The above would suggest that the enactment of the MV Act, 1988 was driven, inter alia, by the rapidly increasing number of vehicles in the country, 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, Novem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... v Kokilaben Chandravadan AIR 1987 SC 1184; Sohan Lal Passi v Sesh Reddy AIR 1996 SC 2627) enacted with the objective of providing a mechanism for victims and their families to seek compensation for loss or injury resulting from road accidents. Additionally, its provisions regarding licensing and penalties for traffic violations serve the broader purpose of promoting road safety. Being a welfare legislation, it must be interpreted in a manner so as not to deprive the claimants of the benefit of the legislation. Any interpretation of its provisions must reflect the dual purpose, of not only as a mechanism for ensuring 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., said Lord Halsbury, "that you must look at the whole instrument inasmuch as there may be inaccuracy and inconsistency; you must, if you can, ascertain what is the meaning of the instrument taken as a whole in order to give effect, if it be possible to do so, to the intention of the framer of it"." 19. Let us now start by noting and understanding the statutory framework of the MV Act and the MV Rules. A snapshot of all the chapters of MV Act is listed below: Chapter I- Definitions Chapter II- Licensing of drivers of motor vehicles Chapter III-Licensing of Conductors of Stage Carriages. Chapter IV- Registration of motor vehicles. 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-Misce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ational qualifications, preliminary test, application for a driving license, driving test, form of driving license, renewal, driving schools and establishments, duration of license, duplicate license as well as the training syllabus. 23. The MV Act and MV Rules work in tandem, like two wheels in the same axle, to form a comprehensive legal framework governing motor vehicles in India. While the Act provides the backbone, the Rules provide specific provisions for implementation. (III) Construing Section 2(21), Section 3 and Section 10 24. To understand the divergent interpretations on the core issue of whether a holder of a LMV license can operate a 'transport vehicle' weighing less than 7,500 kgs, it will be necessary to first consider the relevant definition(s) contained in 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....remises or a vehicle having less than four wheels fitted with engine capacity of not exceeding1 [twenty-five cubic centimetres]; 2(29) "omnibus" means any motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry more than six persons excluding the driver." 2(44) "tractor" means a motor vehicle which is not itself constructed to carry any load (other than equipment used for the purpose of propulsion); but excludes a road-roller;" 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 alternative parts or bodies are used the unladen weight of the vehicle means the weight of the vehicle with the heaviest such alternative part or body;" 25. The term 'Transport Vehicle' is defined in Section 2(47) of the MV Act and each of the terms 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] ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... private service and also (iii) the vehicle types such as omnibuses and motor cars. Therefore, the scheme of the Act is not exactly either user-based or weight-based but is a combination of both. It also takes into account the evolving transportation sector which is reflected in the introduction of new categories of vehicles through various amendments such as adapted vehicles, e-carts, and e-rickshaws. Notably, the Supreme Court has also recognized(Rajasthan SRTC v. Santosh, (2013) 7 SCC 107) that hybrid rickshaws, commonly referred to as 'jugaad' in India, fall under the definition of Motor Vehicle u/s 2(28) of the MV Act. 30. For our discussion, much turns on the definition of LMV contained in Section 2(21) of the MV Act: "light motor vehicle" means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motorcar or tractor or road-roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed 7,500 kilograms." [emphasis supplied] 31. The term 'transport vehicle', 'gross vehicle weight', 'motor car', 'tractor', 'road roller', 'unladen weight' and 'gross vehicle weight' are also s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....- " .. However, it is incumbent on those who contend that the definition given in the interpretation clause does not apply to a particular section to show that the context in fact so requires. An argument based on contrary context which will make the inclusive definition inapplicable to any provision in the Act cannot be accepted as it would make the definition entirely useless. Repugnancy of a definition arises only when the definition does not agree with the subject or context; any action not in conformity with the definition will not obviously make it repugnant to subject or context of the provision containing the term defined under which such action is purported to have been taken. When the application of the definition to a term in a provision containing that term makes it unworkable and otiose, it can be said that the definition is not applicable to that provision because of contrary context." (Justice G.P. Singh, Principles of Statutory Interpretation (LexisNexis,2016)) [emphasis 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....;, 'medium passenger vehicle', 'heavy goods vehicle', and 'heavy passenger vehicle' and the introduction of a separate class of 'transport vehicle' through the 1994 amendment, the counsel for the insurance companies contended that a specific mention of 'transport vehicle' after the amendment would suggest that a separate endorsement would be necessary to drive a 'transport vehicle'. It was further submitted that even before the 1994 amendment, the second part of Section 3 always provided that a separate endorsement would be necessary. 38. Section 3 is titled 'Necessity for driving license' and reads as under: "3. Necessity for driving licence .-- (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorising him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle [other than a motor cab or motor cycle hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under sub-section (2) of section 75] unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do. (2) The conditions subject to which sub-section (1) shall not apply....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....'. The emphasis in the second part of Section 3 should therefore be understood in relation to Medium and Heavy Vehicles in the statutory scheme even prior to the 1994 amendment. The reasonable interpretation of the second part of Section 3 should therefore pertain to a driving license for those driving 'medium goods vehicle', 'medium passenger vehicle', 'heavy goods vehicle', and 'heavy passenger vehicle'. Such an interpretation and understanding would be logical because medium and heavy vehicles would require greater maneuverability and skill as compared to drivers of the LMV class. The subsequent amendment in Section 10 makes this position even clearer. The relevant portion of the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Amendment Act 54 of 1994 may also guide us here and is reproduced below: "(a)The introduction of newer type of vehicles and fast increasing number of both commercial and personal vehicles in the country. (b) Providing adequate compensation to victims of road accidents without going into longdrawn procedure; (c) Protecting consumers' interest in Transport Sector; (d) Concern for road safe t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nse- (a) to drive a heavy goods vehicle unless he has held a driving license for atleast 2 years to drive a light motor vehicle or for at least one year to drive a medium goods vehicle. (b) to drive a medium goods vehicle or a medium passenger vehicle unless he has held a driving license for atleast one year to drive a light motor vehicle." [emphasis supplied] 43. The amended Section 7(1) however, states that: '7. Restrictions on the granting of learner's licences for certain vehicles :- [(1) No person shall be granted a learner's licence to drive a transport vehicle unless he has held a driving licence to drive a light motor vehicle for at least one year:] Therefore, the classes of medium and heavy vehicles stood subsumed under 'transport vehicles'. Our view on the LMV licence holder's capability to drive a transport vehicle is also fortified by the unamended and amended Rule 10 of the MV Rules: Rule 10(pre-amendment) Rule 10 (post-amendment) "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)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld that the amendments carried out in 1994 had a prospective operation and at the time of the accident (pre-amendment), a driver holding a valid license to drive a 'Light Motor Vehicle' was also authorised to drive a 'light goods vehicle'. However, post-amendment, a separate endorsement would be necessary. Thus, the insurance company was held liable to remit the compensation since the accident occurred before the change in law. 44.2. The above interpretation on prospective application in the context of the 1994 amendment, however does not seem to be correct since the mention of the term 'Transport Vehicle', does not exclude transport vehicles that are already classified as 'LMV', under Section 10. If this interpretation were accepted, it would imply that medium or heavy vehicles would no longer require 'specific' endorsements, as those classes were removed by the amendment. This would lead to impractical outcomes. 44.3. The contention that since Light Motor Vehicles and Transport Vehicles are mentioned separately, those Transport Vehicles which (weighing less than 7,500 kg) fall within the class of LMV would require the driver to have a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r will require by law, an additional endorsement because the scheme of the Act provides a clear distinction between 'Light Motor Vehicle' and 'Transport Vehicle'? The following table marking the distinction was placed before the Court for consideration: Sr. No. Differentiating Factor Provision Under M.V. Act / Rules Light Motor Vehicle License Transport Vehicle License Age / Time Requirement (i) Age limit For Driving Sec. 4 18 years and above [S.4(1)] 20 years and above [S.4(2)] (ii) Restriction on grant of Learner's License Sec. 7(1) No minimum requirement to obtainfor License for Light Motorat Vehicle. a Light Motor Vehicle for least 1 year, to obtain Must hold a Driving License Learner's License for Transport Vehicle. [S. 7(1)] (iii) Training Period for Obtaining License Rule 31 Not less than 21 days [Rule 31(2)] (+) Actual Hours of Driving shall not be less than 10 hours. [Rule 31(4)] Not less than 30 days [Rule 31(3)] (+) Actual Hours of Driving shall not be less than 15 hours. [Rule 31(4)] Medical Certificates (iv) Requirement of Medical for Certificate Learner's License Sec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i) Requirement of Uniform and Badges Sec. 28 No such requirement State Govt. may make Rules prescribing Badges and Uniform to be worn by Drivers of Transport Vehicles. [S.28(2)(d)] (xiv) Duties, Functions and Conduct Sec. 28 No such requirement State Govt. may make Rules prescribing Duties and Conduct of such persons to whom license is issued to drive Transport Vehicles. [S.28(2)(h)] (xv) Syllabus for obtaining License Rule 31 Syllabus Part A, B, C, F, G and K [Rule 31(2)] Syllabus Part E, F, G, H, I, J and K [Rule 31(3)] 47. Analysis of the above provisions is now apposite. Chapter II addresses 'Licensing of Drivers of Motor Vehicles'. We have already noticed Section 3 earlier that covers the 'Necessity for Driving License' and specifically mentions 'Transport Vehicle'. Section 4, in sequence, is titled 'Age limit in connection with driving of motor vehicles'. Section 18 referred to in Section 4(2) concerns 'Driving Licenses to drive motor vehicles, belonging to the Central Government'. Section 4(2) in its current form reads as under: "(1) No person under the age of eighteen years shall d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cence to drive a transport vehicle unless he has held a driving licence to drive a light motor vehicle for at least one year:] [Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply to an e-cart or e-rickshaw.] (2) No person under the age of eighteen years shall be granted a learner's licence to drive a motor cycle without gear except with the consent in writing of the person having the care of the person desiring the learner's licence." [emphasis supplied] 51. Section 8 deals with the 'Grant of Learner's license'. The requirement of medical certificate is contained in Section 8(3), Section 15 and Rule 5 of the MV Rules. Sub-section (3) of Section 8 as amended mandates that an application for a Learner's License for a Transport Vehicle must be accompanied by a Medical Certificate by a registered medical practitioner. However, the unamended Section 8 did not mention 'Transport Vehicle': "-8(1) Any person who is not disqualified under section 4 for driving a motor vehicle and who is not for the time being disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence may, subject to the provisions of section 7, apply....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cle to a driving licence or for renewal of a driving licence to drive a vehicle other than a transport vehicle shall be accompanied by a self-declaration as to the physical fitness as in Form 1 and every such application for a licence to drive a transport vehicle shall be accompanied by a medical certificate in Form 1-A issued by a registered medical practitioner referred to in sub-section (3) of section 8" [emphasis supplied] 55. Section 15 titled 'Renewal of driving licenses', outlines the requirements for renewal within the time period provided therein. The second proviso to Section 15(1), mandates the requirement of a medical certificate for 'Transport Vehicle' and for those who are above the age of 40 years. The second proviso therein reads as under: "Provided further that where the application is for the renewal of a licence to drive a transport vehicle or where in any other case the applicant has attained the age of forty years, the same shall be accompanied by a medical certificate in the same form and in the same manner as is referred to in sub-section (3) of section 8, and the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 8 shall, so far as may b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....distinguishing between those for 'transport vehicles' and 'transport vehicles carrying goods,' while also considering the age of the license holder. According to the amended section, individuals under 30 years of age will have their license valid until they reach 40 years, while those aged 30 to 49 will enjoy a 10-year validity period. For individuals aged 50 to 54, the license remains valid until they turn 60, and for those aged 55 and older, the validity is set at 5 years. This framework reflects the understanding that driving capabilities and experience may vary with age. The relevant part of Section 14 is extracted below: "14. Currency of licences to drive motor vehicles .- (1) A learner's licence issued under this Act shall, subject to the other provisions of this Act, be effective for a period of six months from the date of issue of the licence. (2) A driving licence issued or renewed under this Act shall,- (a) in the case of a licence to drive a transport vehicle, be effective for a period of three years: 1 *** 2 [Provided that in the case of licence to drive a transport vehicle carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (1) The syllabus for imparting instructions in driving of motor vehicles of the schools or establishments shall be as follows (see tables below): [(2) The lessons for training drivers of non-transport vehicles shall cover Parts A, B, C, F, G and K of the syllabus referred to in sub-rule (1) and the training period shall not be less than twenty-one days: Provided that in case of motorcycles, it shall be sufficient compliance of the provisions, if portion of Part C of syllabus as applicable to such vehicles are covered. (3) The lessons for training drivers of transport vehicles shall cover Parts E, F, G, H, I, J and K of the syllabus referred to in sub-rule (1) and the training period shall not be less than thirty days" [emphasis supplied] 63. Chapter V of the MV Act specifically deals with 'Control of Transport Vehicles'. Section 66 deals with 'Necessity for Permits' and prohibits an owner of a motor vehicle to use or to permit the use of the motor vehicle as a transport vehicle in any public place save in accordance with the conditions of permit, granted by an appropriate authority: "66. Necessity for permits .- (1) No owner of a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....monize is not to destroy any statutory provision or to render it otiose." [emphasis supplied] 68. Keeping the above principles in mind, let us proceed further. The relevant provisions of the MV Act and the MV Rules would show that the term 'Transport Vehicle' is frequently referenced in various Sections and Rules. Most of these provisions were not noticed in Mukund Dewangan(2017). It is true that the legislature has imposed additional requirements for 'Transport Vehicles'. But should it be enough to say that a 'Light Motor Vehicle' license holder is legally incapable of driving a transport vehicle although its gross vehicle weight is below 7500 kg, as is suggested by the counsel for the insurance companies? In our view, such a manner of interpretation would render superfluous and otiose the precise and compact definition of LMV given in Section 2(21) which so significantly uses the expression 'means'. When questions on the relevance of Section 2(21) was raised, the following points were made :- (a) Section 2(21) which includes Transport Vehicles is for a different regime, set under Section 113 which places limitation both on weight and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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. 71. It was additionally argued that the principle of generalia specialibus non derogant would apply in this case. Section 2(21) is a general provision defining a Light Motor Vehicle which includes a Transport Vehicle,' whereas Section 3 is a specific provision that prohibits driving a 'transport vehicle' without a separate license endorsement. According to Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Section 3 should take precedence, requiring a separate endorsement under the 'Transport Vehicle' class. 72. To address the argument, let us consider the following passage by Lord Herschell LC in Institute of Patent Agents & Ors. v. Joseph Lockwood(1894 A.C. 347 at 360) : "Well, there is a conflict sometimes between two sections to be found in the same Act. You have to try and reconcile them as best you may. If you cannot, you have to determine which is the leading provision and which the subordinate provision, and which must give way to the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ew, 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. 75. At this stage, it needs to be borne in mind that the genesis of the present reference arises from compensation claims. A reference to the judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh((2004) 3 SCC 297) may therefore be apposite. A 3-judge bench of this Court noted that the liability of the insurance company in relation to the owner depends on several factors. The issue of lack of valid driving license was discussed as under: "7. If a person has been given a licence for a particular type of vehicle as specified therein, he cannot be said to have no licence for driving another type of vehicle which is of the same category but of different type. As for example, when a person is granted a licence for driving a light motor vehicle, he can drive eithe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the Act. Minor breaches of licence conditions, such as want of medical fitness certificate, requirement about age of the driver and the like not found to have been the direct cause of the accident, would be treated as minor breaches of inconsequential deviation in the matter of use of vehicles. Such minor and inconsequential deviations with regard to licensing conditions would not constitute sufficient ground to deny the benefit of coverage of insurance to the third parties." [emphasis supplied] 76. The upshot of the above is that compensation must not be denied for minor technical breaches of the licensing conditions. It was submitted before this Court that the decision in Mukund Dewangan(2017) is per incuriam for not considering Para 89 of the judgment. It is true that the Court pertinently notes therein that "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." However, such an observation cannot be considered a conclusive determination by the Court to hold that a separate license for each of these vehicles would be ne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r, for 'Transport Vehicles', the syllabus as per Rule 31 is contained in Part E,F,G,H,I,J and K: Part A: Driving Theory-I Part B: Traffic Education-I Part C: Light Vehicles Driving Practice Part D: Vehicle Mechanism and Repairs Part E: Medium and Heavy Vehicle Driving: Driving Theory-II Part F: Traffic Education-II Part G. Public Relations For Drivers Part H. Heavy Vehicle Driving Practice Part I. Fire Hazards Part J. Vehicle Maintenance Part K. First Aid the syllabus is contained in Part E,F,G,H,I,J and K: 81. Our hypothetical Sri, who wants to drive an auto would then be imparted training for the syllabus outlined in Parts E, F, G, H, I, J & K. These parts primarily pertain to 'Medium and Heavy Vehicle Driving'. The extensive syllabus covers topics such as fire hazards, heavy vehicle maintenance, cross-country practice and hill driving but those would hardly be germane for Sri who is desirous of driving only an auto rickshaw falling within the Light Motor Vehicle class. The legislature in its wisdom had stipulated such a wide-ranging syllabus to augment t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lso misplaced. This is for the reason that legislature has carved out exceptions for these special kinds of vehicles in the MV Act and the MV Rules which is discernible from the following :. (i) Section 28 deals with the power of State Government to make Rules. Clause (h) provides for "the exemption of drivers of road rollers from all or any of the provisions of this Chapter or of the rules made thereunder" (ii) An exception is carved out in Section 7, 9 and 27 of MV Act for e-cart or e-rickshaw. For instance, the proviso to Section 7 states that "Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply to an e-cart or e-rickshaw". (iii) Similarly, Rule 8A provides for minimum training for driving E-rickshaw or E-cart. Rule 9 provides for educational qualifications for drivers of goods carriage carrying dangerous or hazardous goods. Therefore, the present interpretation will not have any impact for such vehicles. 84. It was also argued that the form of the driving license provides for the validity period for Transport' and 'Non Transport Vehicle'. On this contention, we can benefit by the following words of Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t possess a valid 'transport vehicle' license. Before proceeding any further, a short discussion of these decisions in chronological order would be appropriate for aiding clarity to the discussion. 87. The earliest decision on the issue was in 1999, in Ashok Gangadhar Maratha v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. ((1999) 6 SCC 620) (for short "Ashok Gangadhar Maratha"). The definition of LMV at that time stipulated a weight limit of 6000 kgs. The facts in that case was that the appellant who was the holder of a LMV license, owned a Swaraj Mazda truck weighing 5,920 kgs, which got damaged in an accident on 26.11.1991. When the insurer refuted the claim, questioning the validity of the LMV driving license, the appellant filed a complaint before the Consumer Forum. The case traveled to the Supreme Court where a two-judge bench of this Court pertinently observed that a holder of a LMV license can drive a 'transport vehicle', without a specific endorsement and accordingly, compensation was granted to the claimants. The Supreme Court, inter alia, gave an important interpretation to Section 2(21) of the MV Act as well as Rule 2(e) of the MV Rules which defines a "non-transport veh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. The case revolved around an accident that occurred on 4.12.1995, when a tractor driven by the driver lost control and hit two pedestrians, resulting in the death of one person. The LRs of the deceased filed a compensation claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), which ruled in their favor and awarded compensation of Rs.2,07,000 making the Insurance company liable for the insured tractor. The Insurance Company appealed before the High Court, contending that the driver only had a licence to operate a tractor and not a 'goods vehicle', as a trailer filled with stones was attached to the tractor, classifying it as a 'transport vehicle'. Deciding in favour of the Insurance Company, the High Court held that the licence was invalid for driving a 'transport vehicle', and therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. 90.1. Setting aside the decision of the High Court, the Supreme Court held that a person having a valid driving license to drive a particular category of vehicle, does not become unauthorised to drive that category of vehicle, merely because a trailer is attached to it. Interpreting the ter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....endorsement was necessary to drive the Transport Vehicle. It was observed as under: "33. In our considered view, the State Commission was wrong in reversing the finding recorded by the District Forum. So far as Ashok Gangadhar [(1999) 6 SCC 620 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 1170] is concerned, we will deal with the said decision little later but from the documentary evidence on record and particularly, from the permit issued by the Transport Authority, it is amply clear that the vehicle was a "goods carrier" [Section 2(14)]. If it is so, obviously, it was a "transport vehicle" falling under Clause (47) of Section 2 of the Act. The District Forum was, therefore, right in considering the question of liability of the Insurance Company on the basis that Tata 709 which met with an accident was "transport vehicle". 91.2. The Court in Para 40 and Para 41 also distinguished the 1999 judgement in Ashok Gangadhar Maratha(supra) with the following discussion: "40. It is no doubt true that in Ashok Gangadhar [(1999) 6 SCC 620 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 1170] in spite of the fact that the driver was holding valid driving licence to ply light motor vehicle (LMV), this Court upheld the claim and or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ra) where it was held that the definition of 'light motor vehicle' can apply to 'light goods vehicle' as well as a 'light transport vehicle', was also overlooked. Instead the Court distinguished the judgment in Ashok Gangadhar Maratha(supra) on the basis of evidence and pleadings in that case. We have already noted earlier that the reasoning in Ashok Gangadhar Maratha(supra) w.r.t evidence and pleadings was only an additional observation. We must not confuse 'permit' with a 'driving license' to drive a Transport Vehicle'. The Supreme Court in Prabhu Lal(supra) should have followed the decision in Ashok Gangadhar Maratha(supra) which clearly stated the legal position that a 'light motor vehicle' would include a 'light goods vehicle'. 92. The issue in Annappa Irappa Nesaria(supra), as we have already discussed in Part III of the judgment, was whether a driver of a Matador van weighing 3,500 kgs, with a "goods carriage" permit, could drive a "transport vehicle" with just a LMV license. The van met with an accident before the 1994 amendments to the MV Act, when there was no separate class for "transport vehicle." The Court ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ning'. The Insurance Company resisted the claim by contending that the driver did not possess a valid and effective licence to operate the vehicle. The Tribunal allowed the claim and directed the payment of Rs. 1,83,000/- holding that the driver's Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) licence was sufficient. This view was upheld by the High Court. 94.1. Setting aside the above decisions favouring the claim, a two- judge bench of this Court held that the holder of a LMV license must also obtain a separate endorsement for a transport vehicle. It noted that the definition of LMV under Section 2(21) of MV Act would bring within its umbrage a Transport Vehicle but a distinction exists between the two as per Section 3 which deals with the necessity of a driving license. It was thus noted in Para 15 and 16 of the judgment: "15. Section 9 provides for "grant of driving licence". Section 10 prescribes the form and contents of licences to drive which is to the following effect: "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 infor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l for the Insurance Companies placed reliance on the above decision in Angad Kol(supra) to argue that there is a clear distinction between 'transport vehicle' and 'light motor vehicle'. Let us examine if such argument deserves our endorsement. 94.4. The decision in Angad Kol(supra) was rendered when Prabhu Lal(supra) and Annapa Irappa Nesaria(supra) held the field. However, as we have noticed earlier, Prabhu Lal(supra) conspicuously failed to notice the definition of LMV in Section 2(21) even though it considered the definition of Transport Vehicle. It also wrongly distinguished Ashok Gangadhar Maratha(supra), where the legal position was clearly stated as under: "10. The definition of "light motor vehicle" as given in clause (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." 94.5. The Court in Angad Kol(supra) overlooked the cr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... driver had a valid LMV licence, and the Mahindra Maxi Cab was classified as an LMV, the insurance company was liable to pay the compensation. The following was the relevant discussion for what appears to be the correct conclusion in S Iyyappan(supra) :- "18. In the instant case, admittedly the driver was holding a valid driving licence to drive light motor vehicle. There is no dispute that the motor vehicle in question, by which accident took place, was Mahindra Maxi Cab. Merely because the driver did not get any endorsement in the driving licence to drive Mahindra Maxi Cab, which is a light motor vehicle, the High Court has committed grave error of law in holding that the insurer is not liable to pay compensation because the driver was not holding the licence to drive the commercial vehicle. The impugned judgment [ Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1016 of 2002, order dated 31-10-2008 (Mad)] is, therefore, liable to be set aside." 96. Similarly, in Kulwant Singh v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd((2015a) 2 SCC 186),the question for consideration was whether the Insurance Company had recovery rights for breach of conditions of insurance policy when the driver possesses a valid driving....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a Latin term which means 'by inadvertence' or 'lack of care'. English Courts have developed this principle in relaxation of the rule of stare decisis. In Halsbury's Laws of England(Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Edn.) Vol. 26: Judgment and Orders: Judicial Decisions as Authorities (pp. 297-98, para 578)), the concept of per incuriam was explained as under: "A decision is given per incuriam when the court has acted in ignorance of a previous decision of its own or of a court of coordinate jurisdiction which covered the case before it, in which case it must decide which case to follow(Young v. Bristol Aeroplane Co. Ltd., 1944 KB 718 at 729 : (1944) 2 All ER 293 at 300); or when it has acted in ignorance of a House of Lords decision, in which case it must follow that decision; or when the decision is given in ignorance of the terms of a statute or rule having statutory force(Lancaster Motor Co. (London) Ltd. v. Bremith Ltd., (1941) 1 KB 675 : (1941) 2 All ER). A decision should not be treated as given per incuriam, however, simply because of a deficiency of parties(Morelle Ltd. v. Wakeling, (1955) 2 QB 379 : (1955) 1 All ER 708 (CA)), or because the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....advertence or oversight a judgment fails to notice a plain statutory provision or obligatory authority running counter to the reasoning and result reached, it may not have the sway of binding precedents. It should be a glaring case, an obtrusive omission. No such situation presents itself here and we do not embark on the principle of judgment per incuriam." [emphasis supplied] 102. In A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak((1988) 2 SCC 602), the Constitution Bench of this Court made the following observations: "42. It appears that when this Court gave the aforesaid directions on 16-2-1984, for the disposal of the case against the appellant by the High Court, the directions were given oblivious of the relevant provisions or law and the decision in Anwar Ali Sarkar case [State of W.B. v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, (1952) 1 SCC 1 : AIR 1952 SC 75 : 1952 Cri LJ 510] . See Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edn., Vol. 26, p. 297, para 578 and p. 300, the relevant Notes 8, 11 and 15; Dias on Jurisprudence, 5th Edn., pp. 128 and 130; Young v. Bristol Aeroplane Co. Ltd. [Young v. Bristol Aeroplane Co. Ltd., 1944 KB 718 (CA)] Also see the observations of Lord Goddard in Moore v. Hewitt [Moore v.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 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 covered under Section 5(2) of the Act. Therefore, there is no substance in the accused-appellant's plea relating to grant of benefit under the Probation Act. The decision in Bore Gowda case [(2000) 10 SCC 260 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 1244] does not even indicate that Section 18 of the Probation Act was taken note of. In view of the specific statutory bar the view, if any, expressed without analysing the statutory provision cannot in our view be treated as a binding precedent and at the most is to be considered as having been rendered per incuriam. Looked at from any angle, the appeal is sans merit and deserves dismissal which we direct." 106. In State of M.P. v. Narmada Bachao Andolan((2011) 7 SCC 639), this Court reiterated: "67. Thus, "per incuriam" are those decisions given in ignorance or forgetfulness of some statutory provision or authority binding on the W.P.(C)Nos.7785, 7851, court concerned, or a statement of law caused by inadvertence or conclusion that has been arrived at without application of mind or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er 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 be an inconsistent provision and a glaring case of obtrusive omission. (ii) The doctrine of per incuriam applies strictly to the ratio decidendi and does not apply to obiter dicta. (iii)If a court doubts the correctness of a precedent, the appropriate step is to either follow the decision or refer it to a larger Bench for reconsideration. (iv)It has to be shown that some part of the decision was based on a reasoning which was demonstrably wrong, for applying the principle of per incuriam. In exceptional instances, where by obvious inadvertence or oversight, a judgment fails to notice a plain statutory provision or obligatory authority running counter to the reasoning and result reached, the principle of per incuriam may apply. 112. Applying the above principles to the case at hand, let us now apply our mind to the reference made in the context of the decision in Mukund Dewangan(2017). The following questions were referred: "1. What....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he 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 7500 Kgs. It further noted that the syllabus does not provide separate training for transport vehicles but includes them under the relevant vehicle class based on the vehicle's weight. It considered Rule 75 which deals with 'State Register of motor vehicles' as provided in Form 41. Form 41 categorizes vehicles on the basis of, inter alia, gross vehicle weight, unladen weight etc. Likewise, the Court observed that Section 41, pertaining to registration, mandates the inclusion of relevant information as specified in Form 20, which outlines details such as the class of vehicle, gross vehicle weight, and unladen weight, among other factors. 114. The court analysed those key provisions of the Act and Rules and reached a conclusion which is aligned with the discussion and opinion in this judgment. It rightly concluded as under: "(i) 'Light motor vehicle' as defined in section 2(21) of the Act ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 consideration to the important statutory provisions. We have carefully looked at the relevant and the wide ranging provisions in our analysis in this decision. A harmonious interpretation, as we have explained earlier, would lead us to the same conclusion but fortified with some additional reasoning based on the consideration of all the relevant provisions. The overlooked provisions would not, in our considered opinion, alter the eventual pronouncement. Importantly, we do not notice any glaring error or omission that would alter the outcome of the case. Therefore, the ratio in Mukund Dewangan (2017) should not be disturbed by applying the principles of per incuriam. F. IMPACT ON ROAD SAFETY 116. The counsel for the insurance Companies raised concerns regarding road safety, arguing that if the present law in Mukund Dewangan(2017) is not interfered with, unfit drivers will start plyi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rgency 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 rewrite laws. We must be mindful of the institutional limitation to address such concerns. 118. The complexities surrounding the question of whether the Court should examine not only the existing laws and definitions, but also the broader underlying issues of policy have been vividly captured in the following words from Salmond on Jurisprudence(P.J. Fitzgerald(Ed), 'Salmond on Jurisprudence' (12th edn, Sweet and Maxwell 1966)): "Rules, which are originally designed to fit social needs, develop into concepts, which then proceed to take on a life of their own to the detriment of legal development. The resulting "jurisprudence of concepts" produces a slot- machine approach to law whereby new points posing questions of social policy are decided, not by reference to the underlying social situation, but by reference to the meaning and definition of the legal concept....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fferentiated 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 Ashok Gangadhar Maratha(supra). 122. Road safety is a serious public health issue globally. It is crucial to mention that in India, over 1.7 lakh persons(Dipak K Dash, Accidents killed 474 on daily average in 2023 (October 20,2024))were killed in road accidents in 2023. The causes of such accidents are diverse, and assumptions that they stem from drivers operating light transport vehicles with an LMV license are unsubstantiated. Factors(WHO(2023) Global Status Report on Road Safety India 2023 Country profile https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/road-safety-ind-2023-country-profile) contributing to road accidents include careless driving, speeding, poor road design, and failure to adhere to traffic laws. Other significant contributors are mobile phone usage, fatigue, and non-compliance with seat belt or helmet regulations. 123. Driving a motor vehicle i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ourt. 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 driving license for a 'Transport Vehicle' is reduced to a dead letter of law. Therefore, the emphasis on 'Transport Vehicle' in the licensing scheme has to be understood only in the context of the 'medium' and 'heavy' vehicles. This harmonious reading also aligns with the objective of the 1994 amendment in Section 10(2) to simplify the licensing procedure(The classes medium goods vehicle[(10(2)(e)], medium passenger vehicle[10(2)(f)],heavy goods vehicle[10(2)(g)] and heavy passenger vehicle [10(2)(h)] were deleted and a new class 'Transport Vehicle' was introduced in Section 10(2)(e)). 127. The above interpretation also does not defeat the broader twin objectives of the MV Act i.e. road safety and ensuring timely compensation and relief for victims of road accidents. The aspect of road safety is earlier discu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hicle', '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 livelihood issues for drivers operating Transport Vehicles (who clock maximum hours behind the wheels), in legally operating "Transport vehicles" (below 7,500 Kg), with their LMV driving license. Perforce Sri must drive responsibly and should have no occasion to be called either a maniac or an idiot (as mentioned in the first paragraph), while he is behind the wheels. Such harmonious interpretation will substantially address the vexed question of law before this Court. 131. Our conclusions following the above discussion are as under :- (I) A driver holding a license for Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) class, under Section 10(2)(d) for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight under 7,500 kg, is permitted to operate a "Transport Vehicle' without needing additional authorization under Section 10(2)(e) of the MV Act specifically for the....