Supreme Court Seeks Centre’s Response: Whether Driver with ‘LMV License’ Drive Transport Vehicle Having Unladen Weight Below 7500 KG?

Supreme Court Seeks Centre’s Response: Whether Driver with ‘LMV License’ Drive Transport Vehicle Having Unladen Weight Below 7500 KG?

The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has issued notice to the Union Government to seek its view on the issue whether a person holding a driving license in terms of ‘light motor vehicle’ (LMV), could on the strength of that license, be entitled to drive a ‘transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class’ having unladen weight not exceeding 7500 kg.

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, Justices Hrishikesh Roy, PS Narasimha, Pankaj Mithal, and Manoj Misra emphasized that the position of the Union Government and the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways was necessary to decide the reference.

The Court sought assistance of Attorney General for India R Venkataramani. The matter is next listed for hearing on 13 September.

The bench had commenced hearing of the batch of petitions on 18 July 2023.

The issue arose out of a judgement in Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2017). In this case, a three-judge Bench comprising Justices Amitava Roy, Arun Mishra, and Sanjay Kishan Kaul had observed that a separate endorsement in the ‘Light Motor Vehicle’ driving license was not required to drive a transport vehicle having unladen weight below 7500 kilograms. Accordingly, a person holding a LMV driving license was entitled to drive a ‘transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class’ having unladen weight not exceeding 7500 kgs.

However, in March 2022, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance (the petitioners in the matter) moved to the Supreme Court arguing that the Court had erred in its decision. A three-judge Bench comprising Justices UU Lalit, Ravindra Bhat and PS Narasimha raised doubts regarding the correctness of the decision given by the coordinate bench in the case and the matter was thus referred to a Constitution Bench.

The appellant-insurance companies were represented by Mr. Siddharth Dave, Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Mr. NK Kaul, Senior Advocates and SG Tushar Mehta, who was assisted by Ms. Archana Pathak Dave. The supporting intervenors were represented by Mr. Amit Kumar Singh.

The respondents were represented by Mr. Devvrat, Mr. Kaustubh Shukla, Mr. Anuj Bhandari, Advocates and Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Senior Advocate.

The respondents contended that the judgement of the Court in Mukund Dewangan was accepted by the Union Government by issuing a notification dated 16 April, 2018 and 31 March, 2021 in the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways. Subsequently, the Motor Vehicle Rules were amended in 2021 to bring them in conformity with the Mukund Dewangan judgement.

Below are the summarized arguments forwarded by the counsels appearing for appellant-insurance companies:

Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave, in his arguments, relied on various sections of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) such as Section 39 and Section 41 to establish that there was a specific purpose and significance designated to ‘weight’ carried by vehicles. In this context, he also relied on Section 44AE of the Income Tax Act as per which in respect of heavy goods vehicle, the minimum income per vehicle is deemed to be Rs 1000 per ton of ‘gross vehicle weight or unladen weight, as the case may be’, for every month or part thereof. He also argued that transport vehicles were treated as a separate class and could not be considered the same as ‘light motor vehicles.’

Senior Advocate Jayant Bhushan argued that the issue arose due to the definition of ‘light motor vehicle’ which included a transport vehicle which is under 7500 kgs. He stated that the judgement in Mukul Dewangan had made a mistake in dealing with Section 3 of the MV Act.

As per Section 3, “no person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving license issued to him authorizing 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 license specifically entitles him so to do.”

While relying on the second part of Section 3, he argued– “It clearly means that you cannot use your license to drive a transport vehicle unless your license authorizes you specifically to drive a transport vehicle. What was the need of having the second part if you were to say that LMV includes a transport vehicle of less than 7500 kgs. Then second part becomes totally redundant.”

He further invoked the principle of generalia specialibus non derogant, and stated that if you have a special entry and a general entry, whatever comes within the ambit of the special entry, would be excluded from the ambit of the general. He added that LMV was a general entry and transport vehicle was a specific entry.

Senior Advocate NK Kaul, in his arguments stated that ultimately the issue was not whether the transport vehicles were included in the definition of LMV but the issue was whether the holder of the LMV license be entitled to drive all vehicles without any specific endorsement or any application test or any form of eligibility requirement, medical certificate etc.

SG Tushar Mehta, also appearing for the insurance company, argued that the intention of the legislature was safety of all- who drove the vehicle, the passengers, and the people on road.

Upon the submissions of the respondents, the court held–

“We are of the considered view that the position of the union government in the Ministry of Road transport and highways would be necessary to render assistance to the court. We request the learned Attorney General for India to assist the court in that matter. List it on September 13, 2023.”