Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(SC) 972

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI., Hrishikesh Roy, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra, JJ.
M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co Ltd – Appellant
Versus
Rambha Devi & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No 841 of 2018 With SLP(C) No. 10918/2018 SLP(C) No. 9604/2018 SLP(C) No. 9613/2018 Diary No(s). 24834/2018 Diary No(s). 25256/2018 SLP(C) No. 24671/2018 Diary No(s). 32753/2018 Diary No(s). 32756/2018 Diary No(s). 37055/2018 Diary No(s). 39059/2018 SLP(C) No. 426/2019 SLP(C) No. 505-506/2019 SLP(C) No. 17506/2018 Diary No(s). 23638/2018 Diary No(s). 24137/2018 Diary No(s). 24530/2018 Diary No(s). 24534/2018, SLP(C) No. 5958/2019, SLP(C) No. 8918-8919/2019, SLP(C) No. 11503-11504/2019, SLP(C) No. 8277/2020 SLP(C) No. 8123-8124/2022 SLP(C) No. 14645-14646/2017 SLP(C) No. 35472-35473/2017 SLP(C) No. 6055/2018 SLP(C) No. 18849/2019 SLP(C) No. 20449/2019 SLP(C) No. 21547/2019 SLP(C) No. 23017-23018/2019 C.A. No. 8001-8002/2019 SLP(C) No. 766/2020 SLP(C) No. 24545/2019 SLP(C) No. 30601/2019 SLP(C) No. 696/2021 C.A. No. 1477/2018 C.A. No. 842/2018 C.A. No. 1479/2018 C.A. No. 483/2018 C.A. No. 1506/2018 C.A. No. 1478/2018 Diary No(s). 40406/2017 C.A. No. 1476/2018 Diary No(s). 41949/2017 SLP(C) No. 2684-2685/2018 SLP(C) No. 597/2018 SLP(C) No. 524/2018 Diary No(s). 2524/2018, SLP(C) No. 19242-19244/2018, Diary No(s). 23636/2018 SLP(C) No. 28906/2018 SLP(C) No. 13315/2019 SLP(C) No. 14523-14524/2019 Diary No(s). 37270/2017 C.A. No. 1475/2018 SLP(C) No. 5065/2018 SLP(C) No. 10459/2018 SLP(C) No. 9908/2018 SLP(C) No. 6668/2018 Diary No(s). 4869/2018 Diary No(s). 6119/2018 Diary No(s). 6264/2018 SLP(C) No. 8816/2018 SLP(C) No. 9607/2018 SLP(C) No. 9610/2018 SLP(C) No. 9612/2018 SLP(C) No. 9606/2018 SLP(C) No. 9609/2018 Diary No(s). 9963/2018 Diary No(s). 9970/2018 Diary No(s). 990/2018 SLP(C) No. 5193/2018 SLP(C) No. 5188/2018 SLP(C) No. 9611/2018 SLP(C) No. 9608/2018 SLP(C) No. 9605/2018 SLP(C) No. 20221/2023
Decided On : 13-09-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. Jayant K Sud, Sr. Adv., Mr. Siddhartha Dave, Sr. Adv., Mr. Jagdish Chandra Solanki, Adv., Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, AOR, Mr. Kartik Jasra, Adv., Mr. Vaibhav Dwivedi, Adv., Mr. A N Krishna Swami, Adv., Mr. Udai Khanna, Adv., Mr. Avnish Dave, Adv., Mr. Jagdish C Solanki, Adv., Ms. Riya Sethi, Adv., Mr. Pratyush Srivastav, Adv., Ms. Vidhi Thaker, Adv., Mr. Parmod Kumar Vishnoi, Adv., Mr. Prastut Dalvi, Adv., Mr. Kumar Prashant, Adv., Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Sr. Adv., Mr. Tushar Bhushan, Adv., Mr. Amartya Bhushan, Adv., Mr. Yojit Mehra, Adv., Mr. Ketan Paul, Adv., Mr. Sukant Vikram, AOR, Ms. Sakshi Mittal, AOR, Mr. Vishnu Mehra, Adv., Mr. Kunal Malhotra, Adv., Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, AOR, Ms. K Enatoli Sema, Adv., Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Adv., Mr. Prang Newmai, Adv., Mr. Abhsihek Gola, Adv., Mr. Viresh B. Saharya, AOR, Mr. Akshat Agarwal, Adv., Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Adv., Mr. P.K. Seth, Adv., Ms. Manjeet Chawla, AOR, Mrs. Usha Pant Kukreti, Adv., Ms. Meenakshi Midha, Adv., Mr. Kapil Midha, Adv., Ms. Garv Singh, Adv., Ms. Samiksha Gupta, Adv., Mr. Garv Singh, Adv., Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri, AOR, Ms. Hetu Arora Sethi, AOR, Mr. Rajeev Maheshwaranand Roy, AOR, Dr. Meera Agarwal, AOR, Mr. Ramesh Chandra Mishra, Adv., Mr. Sandeep Jha, Adv., Mr. Ram Ekbal Roy, Adv., Mr. Binay Kumar Das, AOR, Ms. Neha Das, Adv., Ms. Priyanka Das, Adv., Ms. Aman Nihal, Adv., Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, Adv., Mr. Ravi Shankar Ravi, Adv., Mr. Sanjay Kumar Lal Das, Adv., Mr. Abhishek Kumar Gola, Adv., Mr. Abhishek K Gola, Adv., Mr. Sudhir Naagar, AOR, Mr. Anil Kumar, AOR, Ms. Amrreeta Swaarup, AOR, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gupta, AOR, Mr. Ganesh Kumar R., AOR, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Dubey, Adv., Mr. Vivek Kumar Pandey, Adv., Mr. Shuchi Singh, AOR, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Tewari, Adv., Mr. Krishna Kant Dubey, Adv., Mr. Ujjwal Kumar Dubey, Adv.,
For the Respondent: Mr. Ram Lal Roy, AOR, Mr. R Venkataramani, Attorney General for India Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Adv., Mr. Punit Damodar, Adv., Mr. C. George Thomas, AOR, Mr. Sanyat Lodha, Adv., Mr. Dhruv Sharma, Adv., Mr. Raghav Agrawal, Adv., Mr. Toshiv Goyal, Adv., Ms. Raveena Kinkhabwala, Adv., Ms. Prachi Pandey, Adv., Mrs. Anitha Shenoy, Sr. Adv., Mr. Vivek Mathur, Adv., Mr. Siddharth Agarwal, Adv., Mr. Ivan, Adv., Ayushma Awasthi, Adv., Ms. Namrata Sarah Caleb, Adv., Parita, Adv., Ms. Mohini Priya, AOR, Mr. Devvrat, AOR, Ms. Charu Sangwan, Adv., Mr. Anup Kumar, Adv., Mr. Abhijit Banerjee, Adv., Ms. Swati Setia, Adv., Mr. Devesh Kumar Agnihotri, Adv., Mr. Sachin Sharma, Adv., Mr. Anuj Bhandari, AOR, Mr. Rajat Gupta, Adv., Mr. Gaurav Jain, Adv., Mrs. Disha Bhandari, Adv., Mrs. Anjali Doshi, Adv., Mr. Kaustubh Shukla, AOR, Mr. Abhishek Gola, Adv., Mr. Viresh B. Saharya, AOR, Mr. Akshat Agarwal, Adv., Mr. Anilendra Pandey, AOR, Ms. Priya Kashyap, Adv., Mr. Rajeev Kumar Ranjan, Adv., Ms. Shalini Kaul, AOR, Mr. Mallikarjun S. Mylar, Adv., Mr. Ashok Bannidinni, AOR, Mr. Sujeet Kumar, Adv., Mr. Nishanth Patil, AOR, Mr. Ayush P Shah, Adv., Mr. Vignesh Adithiya S, Adv., Mr. Tripurari Ray, Adv., Mr. Nithyananda Murthy P, Adv., Mrs. Bhanu Prabha, Adv., Mr. Balwant Singh Billowria, Adv., Mr. Vivekanad Singh, Adv., Mr. Anirudh Ray, Adv., Mr. Atrul Wadera, Adv., Mr. N Suresha, Adv., Mr. Rajinder Singh, Adv., Ms. Shilpa Singh, AOR, Mr. Sushil Kumar Sharma, Adv., Mr. Pahlad Singh Sharma, AOR, Mr. Virendra Kumar, Adv., Mr. Manish Kumar Mishra, Adv., Mr. Kshitij Vedwal, Adv., Mr. Salil Paul, Adv., Mr. Sahil Paul, Adv., Ms. Manjeet Chawla, AOR, M/S. Nuli & Nuli, AOR, Mr. Sibo Sankar Mishra, AOR, Mr. Ganesh Kumar R., AOR, Mr. Manjunath Meled, Adv., Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Adv., Mrs. Vijayalaxmi Udapudi, Adv., Mr. Anil Kumar, AOR, Mr. Subhro Sanyal, AOR, Mr. Prakash Ranjan Nayak, AOR, Mr. C.B.Gururaj, Adv., Mr. Balaram Nayak, Adv., Mr. Animesh Dubey, Adv., Ms. Laxmi Haribhai Nakum, Adv., Mr. Sharanagouda Patil, Adv., Mrs. Supreeta Patil, Adv., M/S. S-legal Associates, AOR, Mr. Pradeep Gaur, Adv., Mr. Amit Gaur, Adv., Mr. Sunil Kumar Sethi, Adv., Ms. Sweta Sinha, Adv., Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR, Mr. P. B. Suresh, AOR, Mr. Vipin Nair, Adv., Mr. Arindam Ghosh, Adv., Mr. Karthik Jayashankar, Adv., Mr. Anshumaan Bahadur, Adv., Mr. P.b.sashaankh, Adv., Mrs. Madhavi Yadav, Adv., Mr. A. N. Krishnaswamy, Adv., Mr. Navneet Kumar, Adv., Mr. Saurabh Tiwari, Adv., Mr. Parijat Kishore, AOR, Mr. Faisal Sherwani, AOR, Mr. Shikher Deep Aggarwal, Adv Shivi Sethi, Adv., Mr. Onkar Thakur, Adv., Mr. M. Shoeb Alam, Adv., Ms. Fauzia Shakil, AOR, Mr. Ujjwal Singh, Adv., Ms. Garima Chaudhary, Adv., Ms. Agastya Sen, Adv.,

IMPORTANT POINT
Motor insurance – Driving licence – Any interpretation or formulation of law must duly take into account valid concerns of road safety bearing on safety of users of public transport facilities.

Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act 1988 – Section 2(21) – Motor insurance – Driving licence – “Light motor vehicle” and “transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class” – Any interpretation or formulation of law must duly take into account valid concerns of road safety bearing on safety of users of public transport facilities – Since enactment of Motor Vehicles Act 1988, there has been rapid evolution of transport sector, particularly in last few years with emergence of new infrastructure and new arrangements for putting into place private transport arrangements – Any change in position of law as expressed in Mukund Dewangan [(2017) 14 SCC 663) would have impact on persons who have obtained insurance relying on law declared by this Court and who may be driving commercial vehicles with LMV licences – A large number of persons would be dependent on the sector for earning their livelihood – Decision in Mukund Dewangan [(2017) 14 SCC 663) has held field for nearly six years and impact of reversal of decision, at this stage, particularly on social sector, is a facet which would have to be placed in balance by policy arm of Government – Such considerations do not necessarily weigh in same direction – However, all of them do raise important issues of policy which must be assessed and evaluated by Union Government – Whether a change in law is warranted is a matter which has to be determined by Union Government after taking a considered decision bearing in mind diverse considerations which fall within its remit in making policy choices and decisions – Once Court is apprised of considered view of Union Government, proceedings before Constitution Bench can be taken up – Union Government requested to carry out this exercise within a period of two months. (Paras 11, 12, 14, 15 and 16)
Facts of the case:
Primary issue which has been referred to Constitution Bench is, whether a person holding a driving licence in respect of a “light motor vehicle” could on strength of licence be entitled to drive a “transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class” having unladen weight not exceeding 7500 kgs.
Findings of Court:
Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the referral Order dated 8th March 2022 or on correctness of the decision in Mukund Dewangan which would await further arguments once considered view of Union Government is placed before this Court.
Result : Proceeding listed for next hearing.

ORDER :

1. This reference before the Constitution Bench arises in pursuance of an order dated 8 March 2022 of a Bench of three-Judges. The three-Judge Bench was in turn hearing a reference by two-Judges which was made on 3 May 2018.

2. The primary issue which has been referred to the Constitution Bench is whether a person holding a driving licence in respect of a “light motor vehicle” could on the strength of the licence be entitled to drive a “transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class” having unladen weight not exceeding 7500 kgs.

3. The issue was dealt with by a Bench of three-Judges in Mukund Dewangan v Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2017) 14 SCC 663. The conclusions which were arrived at in the judgment were in the following terms:

“60. Thus, we answer the questions which are referred to us thus:

60.1. “Light motor vehicle” as defined in Section 2(21) of the Act would include a transport vehicle as per the weight prescribed in Section 2(21) read with Sections 2(15) and 2(48). Such transport vehicles are not excluded from the definition of the light motor vehicle by virtue of Amendment Act 54 of 1994.

60.2. A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg would be a light motor vehicle and also motor car or tractor or a roadroller, “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 roadroller, 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 of 1994 and 28-3-2001 in the form.

60.3. The effect of the amendment made by virtue of Act 54 of 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 10(2)(d)and Section 2(41) of the Act i.e. light motor vehicle.

60.4. The effect of amendment of Form 4 by insertion of “transport vehicle” is related only to the categories which were substituted in the year 1994 and the procedure to obtain driving licence for transport vehicle of class of “light motor vehicle” continues to be the same as it was and has not been changed and there is no requirement to obtain separate endorsement to drive transport vehicle, and if a driver is holding licence to drive light motor vehicle, he can drive transport vehicle of such class without any endorsement to that effect.”

4. When the reference before the three-Judge Bench was taken up, counsel appearing on behalf of the insurance companies submitted that the judgment in Mukund Dewangan (supra) has not noticed certain provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988²[“Act”]. In particular, it was submitted that Section 3 stipulates that “no person shall so drive a transport vehicle other than the 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”. Apart from this, the referral order notes that the two-Judge Bench was also of the view that other provisions, including Sections 4(1), 7 and 14 of the Act and Rules 5 and 31 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules 1989, were not noticed in Mukund Dewangan (supra).

5. The Union of India was not a party to the proceedings before this Court when the refe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2023 Supreme(SC) 972

IMPORTANT POINTMotor insurance – Driving licence – Any interpretation or formulation of law must duly take into account valid concerns of road safety bearing on safety of users of public transport facilities.

Cases Referred (1)

Related Judgments

Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. VS Rambha Devi - 2023 8 Supreme 175

Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. VS Rambha Devi - 2022 Supreme(SC) 785

Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. VS Rambha Devi - 2024 8 Supreme 577

Jai Kumar vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 95

United India Insurance Company Limited VS Fagnu, S/o. Late Kartik - 2024 Supreme(Chh) 128

Baldasi vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 Supreme(Online)(HP) 2

RADHA KRISHAN Vs. KISHNA DEVI - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 4270

JHUNJHAR SINGH AND ANR. Vs. SMT.GUDDI AND ORS. - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 5121

SARDULBHAI BAUBHAI SELNA VS YOGENDRAGIRI HIMMATGIRI GOSWAMI - 2024 Supreme(Guj) 1965

United India Insurance Company Limited VS Rasida Bano - 2024 Supreme(Raj) 1129

IMPORTANT POINT
Motor insurance – Driving licence – Any interpretation or formulation of law must duly take into account valid concerns of road safety bearing on safety of users of public transport facilities.