Separate Licence for Light Motor Vehicles and Transport Vehicles | Judgement Summary
Validity of ‘Light Motor Vehicle’ Licence to Drive ‘Transport Vehicle’Judges: D.Y. Chandrachud CJI, Hrishikesh Roy J, P.S. Narasimha J, Pankaj Mithal J, Manoj Misra J
On 6 November 2024, a five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the allowed light motor vehicle (LMV) licence holders to drive transport vehicles whose unladen weight is less than 7500 kgs. They clarified that the higher standard of eligibility set for transport vehicles under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MVA) applied only for medium and heavy transport vehicles—not LMVs.
Justice Hrishikesh Roy, who authored the verdict, set the ground by stating that the MVA sets broad road safety standards, and is a mechanism for road accident victims and their families to seek compensation for loss or injury. Any interpretation of a provision within this law, he wrote, must therefore “reflect this dual purpose”. With that, he found that there was no data to conclusively suggest that LMV licence holders caused road safety issues.
As he began the judgement, he recalled comedian George Carlin’s words: “Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?”
Background
In Mukund Dewangan v Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2017) the Supreme Court was asked to decide if ‘unladen’ Transport Vehicles under Section 10(2)(e) which are less than 7500 kg would be considered a LMV under Section 10(2)(d). That is, would a person holding a licence to drive a light motor vehicle need a separate licence to drive a Transport Vehicle which was less than 7500 kg before any goods were loaded on it? A three-judge bench held that “a transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg would be a light motor vehicle.”
In March 2022, the matter was revisited when the appellants, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance claimed that Mukund Dewangan was wrong. They argued that LMV and Transport Vehicle licences are governed by distinct regulatory standards within the provisions of the MVA and the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. These include differences in age eligibility, required medical clearance and specific training requirements for both distinct vehicle categories.
On 8 March 2022, a three-judge bench of (then) Justice U.U. Lalit, S.R. Bhat and P.S. Narasimha referred the case to a larger bench to review the points omitted by the Court in Mukund Dewangan.
The case was listed before a five-judge bench led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, and Justices Hrishikesh Roy, P.S. Narasimha, Pankaj Mithal and Manoj Misra. The bench delivered its decision on 6 November 2024. Justice Roy authored the judgement.
Categorisation of vehicles under the MVA
The bench first observed that vehicles in the MVA are not solely categorised by their weight (such as light motor vehicle and heavy goods vehicle), but with a combination of intended use (school bus, private vehicle etc) and by the type of vehicle as well.
Section 2(21) of the MVA, states that “Light Motor Vehicles 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.” Justice Roy held that the words “LMV means transport vehicle” leaves no ambiguity that transport vehicles whose unladen weight is under 7500 kg is an LMV.
The bench then clarified Section 3, the (seemingly) contrasting provision which was causing some of the ambiguity. Section 3 of the MVA states that “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…unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do.” Insurance companies had argued that this mandated a separate driving licence for transport vehicles.
Rejecting this argument, the bench pointed out that an application form for a drivers licence does not contain a “transport vehicle” option. Instead, the listed categories include medium goods or passenger vehicles, or heavy goods or passenger vehicles. This shows that the classification was weight and use based.
So a driver who wanted to get a licence for an auto rickshaw would opt for the LMV licence while filling the form. Therefore, Section 3 only mandated a separate licence for medium and heavy transport vehicles, specifically those weighing over 7500 kg. Anyway, Justice Roy wrote, Section 2(21) already states that an LMV means a transport vehicle.
The effect of upholding Mukund Dewangan
Insurance companies had also argued that Mukund Dewangan left out crucial provisions in its considerations. They claimed that these provisions set out different parameters for transport vehicle licence holders such as a different age of eligibility to obtain learners’ and drivers’ licences, different durations for the card’s validity, an added requirement of a medical certificate and different training modules for each type of transport vehicle. They relied on the Latin interpretative rule “generalia specialibus non derogant” which meant that a general law must take a back seat when compared to the special laws. In this context, specific laws made for transport vehicles had to take importance over a general definition clause for LMVs.
Justice Roy wrote that “generalia specialibus non derogant” applies only in cases where two existing laws cannot be read harmoniously to coexist in the legal ecosystem.
Each of the added eligibility criteria, validity rules and other requirements may be applied to medium and heavy transport vehicles to ensure that both Section 2(21) and provisions concerning transport vehicles may coexist harmoniously.
Justice Roy wrote that the “one provision must give way to the other only when reconciliation is not possible.”
He found that reconciliation was, in fact, possible in this case.
“It is true that Mukund Dewangan (2017) did not analyse the provisions that distinguish transport and non-transport vehicles, as noted in the reference orders,” Justice Roy wrote. “However, the judgment gave due consideration to the important statutory provisions.”
Are Indian roads made unsafe by Mukund Dewangan?
Insurance companies had argued that upholding Mukund Dewangan would allow unfit drivers without the right training to drive transport vehicles. The Society against Drunk Driving had argued that this violated the right to safety on the road under Article 21.
Justice Roy wrote that the Court has stepped in various situations, particularly in Public Interest Litigations (PILs) to ensure safety. However, he noted, this was not a PIL and the Court is not testing the constitutional validity of any of the provisions.
More importantly, the Court found that there was no empirical data to show a direct link between road accidents and drivers in transport vehicles with LMV licences.