Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(SC) 994

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DR. 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. – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 841 of 2018 With Slp(C) No. 10918 of 2018 SLP(C) No. 9604 of 2018 SLP(C) No. 9613 of 2018 Diary No. 24834 of 2018 Diary No. 25256 of 2018 SLP(C) No. 24671 of 2018 Diary No. 32753 of 2018 Diary No. 32756 of 2018 Diary No. 37055 of 2018 Diary No. 39059 of 2018 SLP(C) No. 426 of 2019 SLP(C) Nos. 505-506 of 2019 SLP(C) No. 17506 of 2018 Diary No. 23638 of 2018 Diary No. 24137 of 2018 Diary No. 24530 of 2018 Diary No. 24534 of 2018 SLP(C) No. 5958 of 2019 SLP(C) Nos. 8918-8919 of 2019 SLP(C) Nos. 11503-11504 of 2019 SLP(C) No. 8277 of 2020 SLP(C) Nos. 8123-8124 of 2022 SLP(C) Nos. 14645-14646 of 2017 SLP(C) No. 35472-35473 of 2017 SLP(C) No. 6055 of 2018 SLP(C) No. 18849 of 2019 SLP(C) No. 20449 of 2019 SLP(C) Nos. 21547 of 2019 SLP(C) Nos. 23017-23018 of 2019 CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 8001-8002 of 2024 SLP(C) No. 766 of 2020 SLP(C) No. 24545 of 2019 SLP(C) Nos. 30601 of 2019 SLP(C) No. 696 of 2021 CIVIL APPEAL 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 SLP(C) No. 28961 of 2023
Decided On : 06-11-2024

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, Sr. Adv. Ms. Ankita Chaudhary, AOR Mr. Vaibhav Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Avnish Dave, Adv. Mr. Parmod Kumar Vishnoi, Adv. Mr. Raghav Sharma, Adv. Mr. Shreyas Balaji, Adv. Mr. Kumar Prashant, Adv. Ms. Vidhi Pankaj Thakar, Adv. Ms. Harshita Choubey, Adv. Mr. Prastut Mahesh Dalvi, Adv. Ms. Harshita Chaubey, Adv. Ms. Muskaan, Adv. Mr. Aadhar Saha, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Ghade, AOR Ms. Sakshi Mittal, AOR Mr. Parijat Kishore, AOR Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, AOR Ms. K Enatoli Sema, Adv. Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Adv. Mr. Prang Newmai, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Gola, Adv. Mr. Viresh B. Saharya, AOR Mr. P.K. Seth, Adv. Ms. Manjeet Chawla, AOR Mrs. Usha Pant Kukreti, Adv. Ms. Meenakshi Midha, Adv. Garv Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Parashar, Adv. Ms. Samiksha Gupta, Adv. Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri, AOR Ms. Hetu Arora Sethi, AOR Mr. Rajeev Maheshwaranand Roy, AOR Dr. Meera Agarwal, AOR Mr. Anil Kumar, AOR Mr. Sandeep Jha, Adv. Mr. Ram Ekbal Roy, Adv. Ms. Priyanka Das Das, Adv. Ms. Neha Das, Adv. Mr. Aman Nihal, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Lal Das, Adv. Mr. Ravi Shankar Ravi, Adv. Mr. Binay Kumar Das, AOR Mr. Shakeel Ahmed, AOR Mr. Rizwan Ahmad, Adv. Mr. Paras Nath Singh, Adv. Ms. Pratibha Singh, Adv. Mr. Vikramjeet Singh Ranga, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Kumar Gola, Adv. Mr. Ramneek Singh, Adv. Mr. Roop Chaudhary, Adv. Ms. Savita, Adv. Mr. Sudhir Naagar, AOR Ms. Amrreeta Swaarup, AOR Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gupta, AOR Mr. Manjunath Meled, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Adv. Mrs. Vijayalaxmi Udapudi, Adv. Mr. Ganesh Kumar R., AOR Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sukant Vikram, AOR Mr. Tushar Bhushan, Adv. Mr. Amartya Bhushan, Adv. Mr. Yojit Mehra, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Dubey, Adv. Mr. Shuchi Singh, AOR Ms. Shuchi Singh, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Tewari, Adv. Mr. Vivek Kumar Pandey, Adv. Mr. Ujjwal Kumar Dubey, Adv. Mr. Jainendra Kumar, Adv. Mr. Krishna Kant Dubey, Adv. Mr. Devendra Kumar Mishra, Adv. Mr. Aman Kumar, Adv. Mr. Yasharth Kant, AOR Ms. Tanvi Saran, Adv. Mr. Suryaansh Kishan Razdan, Adv. Ms. Sonal Kushwah, Adv. Mr. Jagdish Chandra, Adv. Ms. Aishwarya Sinha, Adv. Mr. Niteen Kumar Sinha, AOR Mr. Ram Lal Roy, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Adv. Mr. Punit Damodar, Adv. Mr. C. George Thomas, 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. Mallikarjun S. Mylar, Adv. Mr. Ashok Bannidinni, AOR Ms. Betsara Mylliemngap, Adv. Mr. Rudramuni Swamy, Adv. Ms. Shalini Kaul, AOR Mr. Pushpinder Singh, Adv. Mr. Kumar Kartikay, Adv. Ms. Anurag Rana, Adv. Ms. Viddusshi, Adv. Mr. Gajender Singh, Adv. Ms. Anmol Sharma, Adv. Mr. Dharmendar Singh, Adv. Ms. Shilpa Singh, AOR Mr. Nishanth Patil, AOR Mr. Pahlad Singh Sharma, AOR Mr. Anil Kumar, AOR Mr. Anand Sanjay M Nuli, Sr. Adv. Mr. Dharam Singh, Adv. Mr. Suraj Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Nanda Kumar K B, Adv. Mr. Agam Sharma, Adv. Ms. Akhila Wali, Adv. Mr. Akash S Kukreja, Adv. M/S. Nuli & Nuli, AOR Mr. Manjunath Meled, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Adv. Mrs. Vijayalaxmi Udapudi, Adv. Mr. Ganesh Kumar R., AOR Mr. Subhro Sanyal, AOR Mr. Shivam Singh, Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar, Adv. Mr. Ishwar Singh, Adv. Ms. Bahuli Sharma, Adv. Mr. Shubham Janghu, Adv. Mr. Suyash Vyas, Adv. Mr. Divyansh Mishra, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Singh, Adv. Mr. Yoshit Jain, Adv. Mr. Ravi Shanker Jha, Adv. Mr. Gopal Singh, AOR Mr. Prakash Ranjan Nayak, AOR Mr. C.B. Gururaj, Adv. Mr. Debasis Jena, Adv. Mr. Animesh Dubey, Adv. Mr. Apoorv Nautiyal, Adv. Mr. Sharanagouda Patil, Adv. Mrs. Supreeta Patil, Adv. Mr. Jyotish Pandey, Adv. Mr. Vinod Kumar Srivastava, Adv. M/S. S-legal Associates, AOR Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR Ms. Fauzia Shakil, AOR Mr. Ujjwal Singh, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) (I) A driver holding a license for Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) class, under Section 10(2)(d) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 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 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 specifically for ‘Transport Vehicle’ class. For licensing purposes, LMVs and Transport Vehicles are not entirely separate classes. An overlap exists between the two. Special eligibility requirements will however continue to apply for, inter alia, e-carts, e- rickshaws, and vehicles carrying hazardous goods.
(II) Second part of Section 3(1), which emphasizes the necessity of a specific requirement to drive a ‘Transport Vehicle,’ does not supersede the definition of LMV provided in Section 2(21) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
(III) Additional eligibility criteria specified in MV Act and MV Rules generally for driving ‘transport vehicles’ would apply only to those intending to operate vehicles with gross vehicle weight exceeding 7,500 kg i.e. ‘medium goods vehicle’, ‘medium passenger vehicle’, ‘heavy goods vehicle’ and ‘heavy passenger vehicle’.
(IV) Decision in Mukund Dewangan (2017) is upheld but for reasons as explained by us in this judgment. In the absence of any obtrusive omission, the decision is not per incuriam, even if certain provisions of the MV Act and MV Rules were not considered in the said judgment.
(2) Interpretation of Statute – Principle of Harmonious Construction – To harmonize is not to destroy any statutory provision or to render it otiose – It is duty of courts to avoid a head-on clash between two sections of the Act.
(3) Precedent – Doctrine of per incuriam applies strictly to ratio decidendi and does not apply to obiter dicta.

Headnote:
(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 10(2)(d) – Driving licence – Whether an individual holding an LMV license can legally drive a transport vehicle if it falls within stipulated weight limit of 7,500 kgs – MV Act,1988 is fundamentally a social welfare legislation enacted with 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 broader purpose of promoting road safety – Being a welfare legislation, it must be interpreted in a manner so as not to deprive claimants of benefit of legislation – Any interpretation of its provisions must reflect 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 – In interpreting any statute, it is always prudent to keep an eye on object and purpose of statute, as well as underlying reason and spirit behind it – 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 introduction of new categories of vehicles through various amendments – Legislature did not wish to maintain distinction between two classes of vehicles. (Paras 15, 16, 29 and 32)
(B) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Sections 2(21) and 3 – Driving licence – Whether an individual holding an LMV license can legally drive a transport vehicle if it falls within stipulated weight limit of 7,500 kgs – For LMV licence holders, a separate endorsement under ‘Transport Vehicle’ class would be unnecessary for driving LMV class of vehicles – Emphasis on ‘Transport Vehicle’ in licensing scheme has to be understood only in context of ‘medium’ and ‘heavy’ vehicles – It would be logical to hold that additional licensing requirements will have no application for LMV class of vehicles but will be needed only for such ‘Transport Vehicles’, which by virtue of their gross weight fall in Medium and Heavy category – Compensation must not be denied for minor technical breaches of licensing conditions – A person holding a LMV license is equally competent to drive a Transport Vehicle, provided the vehicle’s gross weight does not exceed 7,500 kgs. – Reference to ‘transport vehicle’ in Section 3(1) and other sections of Act and Rules should be understood as applying to only those vehicles which fall beyond scope of sensu stricto definition, under Section 2(21) – This interpretation would ensure that no provision or word is rendered otiose and licensing regime remains coherent with legislative intent – A vehicle cannot be readily classified as a ‘transport vehicle’ requiring a separate endorsement in driving licence – A ‘light motor vehicle’ would include a ‘light goods vehicle’ – ‘Driving license’ is different from a ‘permit’ – Conflation of two terms led to confusion – While a driving license relates to a driver’s qualification, a ‘permit’ relates to vehicle’s operational classification – User-based or weight-based but is a combination of both – It also takes into account evolving transportation sector which is reflected in introduction of new categories of vehicles through various amendments – Legislature did not wish to maintain distinction between two classes of vehicles. (Paras 74, 76, 85, 90.2, 91.3, 94.5 and 126)
(C) Interpretation of Statute – Principle of Harmonious Construction – To harmonize is not to destroy any statutory provision or to render it otiose – It is duty of courts to avoid a head-on clash between two sections of the Act and to construe provisions which appear to be in conflict with each other in such a manner as to harmonise them – Provisions of one section of a statute cannot be used to defeat other provisions unless court, in spite of its efforts, finds it impossible to effect reconciliation between them – When there are two conflicting provisions in an Act, which cannot be reconciled with each other, they should be so interpreted that, if possible, effect should be given to both – This is essence of rule of harmonious construction – Courts have also to keep in mind that an interpretation which reduces one of provisions to a “dead letter” or “useless lumber” is not harmonious construction – One provision must give way to other only when reconciliation is not possible – However, when it is possible to harmonize the two, Court need not determine which is the leading provision. (Paras 67 and 73)
(D) Interpretation of Statute – Principle of Harmonious Construction – A statute should be interpreted in a manner that avoids leading to unworkable or impractical outcomes – If a statutory interpretation results in confusion, impracticability or creates burden that Legislature could not have intended, such interpretation should be avoided. (Para 77)
(E) Precedent – Principle of Per Incuriam – A decision is per incuriam only when overlooked statutory provision or legal precedent is central to 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 – Doctrine of per incuriam applies strictly to ratio decidendi and does not apply to obiter dicta – If a court doubts correctness of a precedent, appropriate step is to either follow decision or refer it to a larger Bench for reconsideration – It has to be shown that some part of decision was based on a reasoning which was demonstrably wrong, for applying 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 reasoning and result reached, principle of per incuriam may apply. (Para 111)
Facts of the case:
Following specific issues fall for consideration:
(i) Whether a driver holding an LMV license (for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight of less than 7,500 kgs) as per Section 10(2)(d), which specifies ‘Light Motor Vehicle’, can operate a ‘Transport Vehicle’ without obtaining specific authorization under Section 10(2)(e) of MV Act, specifically for ‘Transport Vehicle’ class;
(ii) Whether second part of Section 3(1) which emphasizes necessity of a driving license for a ‘Transport Vehicle’ overrides the definition of LMV in Section 2(21) of MV Act? Is definition of LMV contained in Section 2(21) of MV Act unrelated to licensing framework under the MV Act and the MV Rules;
(iii) Whether additional eligibility criteria prescribed in MV Act and MV Rules for ‘transport vehicles’ would apply to those who are desirous of driving vehicles weighing below 7,500 kgs and have obtained a license for LMV class under Section 10(2)(d) of MV Act ;
(iv) What is effect of amendment made by virtue of Act 54 of 1994 w.e.f. 14.11.1994 which substituted four classes under clauses (e) to (h) in Section 10 with a single class of ‘Transport Vehicle’ in Section 10(2)(e)?
(v) Whether decision in Mukund Dewangan (2017) is per incuriam for not noticing certain provisions of the MV Act and MV Rules?
Findings of Court:
In an era where autonomous or driver-less vehicles are no longer tales of science fiction and app-based passenger platforms are a modern reality, licensing regime cannot remain static. Amendments that have been carried out by Indian legislature may not have dealt with all possible concerns. As a legislative exercise is underway, we hope that a comprehensive amendment to address the statutory lacunae will be made with necessary corrective measures.
Result : Reference answered.

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

A driver holding a license for Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) under Section 10(2)(d), which pertains to vehicles with a gross vehicle weight under 7,500 kg, is permitted to operate a ‘Transport Vehicle’ without requiring a separate endorsement under Section 10(2)(e) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. For licensing purposes, LMVs and Transport Vehicles are not entirely distinct categories; there exists an overlap, and the licensing regime is designed to be cohesive (!) (!) .
The second part of Section 3(1), which emphasizes the necessity of a specific license to drive a ‘Transport Vehicle’, does not override the definition of LMV provided in Section 2(21). This means that holding an LMV license inherently includes the capacity to operate certain Transport Vehicles within the weight limit of 7,500 kg, without additional licensing requirements (!) (!) .
Additional eligibility criteria and requirements specified in the MV Act and MV Rules for operating ‘Transport Vehicles’ generally apply only to vehicles exceeding 7,500 kg gross vehicle weight. These include provisions for medium and heavy vehicles, which necessitate specific qualifications, endorsements, or conditions (!) (!) .
The decision that a license for LMV suffices for driving Transport Vehicles below the 7,500 kg threshold is upheld. The earlier interpretation that required separate endorsements or licenses for Transport Vehicles within this weight limit is considered overly restrictive and not aligned with the legislative intent (!) (!) .
The interpretation in the referenced judgment is not considered per incuriam. The judgment appropriately considers the relevant provisions of the MV Act and MV Rules, and any omissions do not amount to a fundamental flaw that would invalidate the decision (!) (!) .
The overarching legislative scheme aims to balance road safety with the practical needs of drivers and vehicle operators. The licensing regime is designed to be flexible enough to accommodate vehicles within the weight limit of 7,500 kg under a single LMV license, provided the driver meets the general requirements of competence and fitness (!) (!) .
The broader objectives of the MV Act include ensuring road safety and providing timely compensation to accident victims. The interpretation that allows LMV license holders to operate Transport Vehicles below 7,500 kg supports these objectives by maintaining a practical and coherent licensing framework (!) (!) .
The legislative amendments and rules have evolved to simplify licensing procedures and clarify classifications, but they do not intend to create a rigid separation between LMV and Transport Vehicles within the specified weight limit. The focus remains on the vehicle’s weight and the driver’s competence, rather than requiring separate endorsements for every vehicle category below the threshold (!) (!) .
The legal framework recognizes that the core driving skills are generally universal across vehicle types within the same weight class, and additional requirements or endorsements are primarily aimed at vehicles exceeding the 7,500 kg limit or involving specific safety concerns (!) (!) .
The decision emphasizes that the legislative intent is to prevent unnecessary restrictions that could hinder livelihood and operational efficiency, provided safety standards are maintained. The interpretation aligns with the overarching purpose of the MV Act to facilitate safe and lawful transportation while ensuring protection of public interests (!) (!) .

In summary, the legal principles extracted from the document support the view that a license for Light Motor Vehicle, within the specified weight limit, inherently permits the driver to operate Transport Vehicles of similar weight without requiring additional endorsements, and this interpretation aligns with the legislative intent and the broader objectives of the MV Act.

JUDGMENT :

Hrishikesh Roy, J.

Title

A. Background

B. Submissions on behalf of Insurance Companies

C. Submissions on behalf of Claimants

D. Issues

E. Discussion

(I) The Purpose of MV Act

(II) Brief Overview of MV Act & MV Rules

(III) Construing Section 2(21), 3 & 10 of MV Act

(IV) Whether the interpretation in Mukund Dewangan(2017) renders most provisions of the MV Act & MV Rules otiose?

(a) Harmonious Construction

(b) Interpretation must not lead to impractical outcomes

(V) Discussion on the 8 Conflicting judgments

(VI) Is Mukund Dewangan(2017) per incuriam?

F. Impact on Road Safety

G. Conclusion

1. On the perception of the capability of drivers on the road, the comedian George Carlin made the humorous observation to the effect that: ‘Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?’¹[George Carlin, ‘Carlin on Campus’ (HBO, 1984) accessed 2 November 2024]. Concerns about road safety are often shaped by individual biases without the opinion being founded on any empirical data. It is easy to overlook the full spectrum of factors that contribute to road safety. In this context, the pivotal legal issue that this Constitution bench of five judges has to decide is whether under the existing legal framework of the Motor Vehicle Act,1988 (for short “MV Act”) and the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short, “MV Rules”), a person holding a license for a ‘Light Motor Vehicle’ class, can drive a ‘Transport Vehicle’ without a specific endorsement, provided the ‘Gross Vehicle Weight’ 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:

59.2. Whether “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 licence to drive 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 kg or a motor car or tractor or roadroller, the “unladen weight” of which does not exceed 7500 kg?

59.3. What is 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”, “medium passenger motor vehicle”, “heavy goods vehicle” and “heavy passenger motor vehicle” by “transport vehicle”? Whether insertion of the expression “transport vehicle” under Section 10(2)(e) is related to the 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?

59.4. What is the effect of amendment of F

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(SC) 994

Cases Referred (40)

Related Judgments

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

JAI KUMAR & ANR. Vs THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS. - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 95

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

Reliance General Ins. Co. Ltd. VS Pravinji Khengarji Thakor - 2023 Supreme(Guj) 344

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

National Insurance Company Limited VS Abdul Majeed - 2021 Supreme(J&K) 481

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

MAHENDRA MALI Vs. RAMDAYAL MEENA - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 4033

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS HONNAPPA @ HONNANAIKA S/O BASAVANAIKA - 2021 Supreme(Kar) 268

Naveen Kumar Chopda v. Hemprakash and Others - 2019 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 427