A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court issued a directive that the decision rendered in its 2017 judgment in Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited shall remain applicable during the ongoing reference concerning the requirements for a "Light Motor Vehicle" (LMV) driving license for transport vehicles. The Constitution Bench was deliberating on a reference challenging the Mukund Dewangan judgment. The specific issue under consideration was whether an individual holding a driving licence for a “light motor vehicle” is authorised to operate a “transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class” with an unladen weight not exceeding 7500 kg.
The judgment had established that a separate endorsement in the LMV driving licence was unnecessary for driving a transport vehicle with an unladen weight below 7500 kgs. The Constitution Bench affirmed the continuity of this interpretation until the resolution of the pending reference.
Brief Facts of the Case:
The case involved various Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) and Civil Appeals related to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, with multiple parties seeking admissions, condonation of delays, and exemptions from filing certain documents. The case primarily dealt with the question of whether a person holding a driving license for a light motor vehicle is entitled to legally drive a transport vehicle of a particular weight.
Contentions of the Parties:
The appellant, represented by Mr. Tushar Mehta, the Solicitor General, and other senior advocates, contended that certain provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, specifically Section 2(21) and Section 10, required evaluation and potential amendment. The Union Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, a party to the case, informed the court about its ongoing exercise to amend the Act, emphasizing the need for extensive consultations with stakeholders, especially the States, due to the Act's concurrent subject status under the Constitution.
The respondents, represented by Mr. R Venkataramani, the Attorney General for India, and other senior advocates, presented counterarguments during the proceedings. They highlighted the complexities involved in amending the Motor Vehicles Act, including the need for careful consideration of the impact on other provisions, rules formulated under the Act, state exchequers, and the general public. The respondents emphasized the necessity of thorough consultations and the incorporation of stakeholders' views in the proposed amendments.
The Union Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, through its note presented by the Attorney General, outlined the steps taken, including internal discussions and consultations with various stakeholders, to assess the potential repercussions of the proposed amendments. The Ministry sought an adjournment of the proceedings to continue consultations and thoroughly examine the issues involved.
Observations of the Court:
In response, the court acknowledged the importance of bringing certainty to the issues raised in the reference, particularly questioning the correctness of the three-judge Bench decision in Mukund Dewangan v Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2017) 14 SCC 663. Despite the Union government's request for adjournment, the court directed MoRTH to pursue the amendment exercise with utmost expedition.
The court emphasized that the Union government should coordinate with state governments and Union Territories to ensure timely consultations, setting a deadline for completion. The next hearing is scheduled for January 17, 2024, by which date the consultations should conclude, and the Union government must present a road map for the proposed amendments.
Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited:
The three-judge bench concluded that Section 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 necessitates a driver to possess a licence concerning the class of vehicles rather than the specific type of vehicle.
(i) The definition of 'light motor vehicle' includes a transport vehicle as per the prescribed weight in section 2(21) read with section 2(15) and 2(48), and such transport vehicles are not excluded by virtue of Amendment Act No.54/1994.
(ii) A transport vehicle or omnibus, with a gross vehicle weight not exceeding 7500 kg, qualifies as a light motor vehicle. Moreover, a motor car, tractor, or road roller, with an 'unladen weight' not exceeding 7500 kg, falls within this category. A driving licence issued for the class of "light motor vehicle" under section 10(2)(d) authorises the driver to operate a transport vehicle, omnibus, motor car, tractor, or road roller meeting the specified weight criteria. No additional endorsement on the licence is required for operating such vehicles.
(iii) The amendment brought about by Act No.54/1994, substituting clauses (e) to (h) of section 10(2) with the expression 'transport vehicle,' only pertains to the substituted classes listed in 1994. It does not exclude transport vehicles from the scope of section 10(2)(d) and section 2(41) of the Act, denoting light motor vehicles.
(iv) The amendment to Form 4 by the insertion of "transport vehicle" is confined to the categories substituted in 1994. The process for obtaining a driving licence for a transport vehicle of the "light motor vehicle" class remains unchanged. There is no requirement for a separate endorsement to operate a transport vehicle if the driver holds a licence to drive a light motor vehicle.
The Decision of the Court:
During the interim period, the court ruled that the judgment of the three-judge Bench in Mukund Dewangan would continue to hold sway, and all relevant authorities should act accordingly. The order also instructed the Chief Secretaries of all States and Union Territories to disseminate the information to their competent departments.
Case Name: M/S Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Rambha Devi & Ors.
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Hon'ble Mr. Justice PS Narasimha, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Mithal, and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manoj Misra
Case No.: Civil Appeal No(s).841/2018
Advocates of the Appellant: Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General and Ors.
Advocates of the Respondent: Mr. R Venkataramani, Attorney General for India and Ors.
Read Order @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
