Separate licence for transport vehicles | Day 7: Five-judge bench reserves judgement
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 21 August 2024, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud reserved judgement in a case determining the eligibility of a light motor vehicle (LMV) licence holder to drive a transport vehicle weighing less than 7500 kilograms. Arguments in the case took place across seven days between July 2023 to August 2024.
During the last hearing, in April 2024, the Union government had submitted a note on a proposed set of amendments to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MVA). Attorney General R. Venkataramani had suggested that the matter be kept aside till the amendments were passed in the winter session of Parliament. The winter session is likely to take place after Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud retires in November 2024. Notably, the amendments intend to include transport vehicles weighing less than 7500 kilograms within the ambit of a LMV licence. Senior Advocate Jayant Bhushan, appearing for an insurance company, favoured continuing the arguments as the case will have to be re-heard from scratch by the time the amendments are put into paper. The Chief agreed and heard the case.
Background
In Mukund Dewangan v Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2017) the Supreme Court was asked to decide if ‘unladen’ transport vehicles under Sec. 10(2)(e) which are less than 7500 kg would be considered a light motor vehicle under Sec. 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 appellants, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance argued that the Supreme Court erred in allowing holders of the light motor vehicle licence to drive a transport vehicle. They claimed that the MVA created starkly different rules for each. Provisions of the MVA and Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (Motor Vehicles Rules)—which concerned age of eligibility for driver’s and learner’s licence, duration of validity of licence, required medical clearance and training—were distinct for the two categories of vehicles.
On March 8th 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.
Bhushan: MVA treats transport vehicles as a different class
Bhushan pointed out that several provisions of the MVA dealing with the necessity of a driver’s licence (Section 3), age limit of driving a motor vehicle (Section 4), restrictions on granting a learners licence on certain vehicles (Section 7), granting of a driving licence (Section 9), and form and content of the drivers licence (Section 10) make visible distinctions between a LMV and a transport vehicle.
Specifically, Section 10(2) of the MVA treats a LMV and a transport vehicle as a separate class of vehicles. He stated that transport vehicles were added under the purview of the MVA only after a substantial amendment in 1994. Prior to that, Section 10 made no mention about transport vehicles.
Bhushan further submitted that under Section 3 of the MVA, deals with the “necessity of a driving licence” for a transport vehicle separately from a light motor vehicle. In this regard, he argued that the Court’s decision in Mukund Dewangan v Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2017) which held that a light motor vehicle licence is valid for transport vehicles weighing less than 7500 kilograms, was incorrect. Parliament, he said, had intentionally kept the two on an individual footing. But Mukund Dewangan had potential to render Section 3 redundant.
Bhushan also highlighted that the minimum age prescription for a transport vehicle was 20, but for the LMV it was 18. Therefore, he suggested that a person with an LMV licence could not be eligible to drive a transport which requires a higher degree of training and experience.
Petitioners: Transport Vehicle licence requires a different level of expertise
Justice Hrishikesh Roy inquired the reason behind a special endorsement of transport vehicles over LMVs. Bhushan replied that transport vehicles included large vehicles like trucks and buses. These vehicles had passengers on board and had to be driven carefully. Further, he stated that they could also pose a threat to pedestrians, if driven without proper training. LMVs, on the other hand, like cars, were driven for shorter periods in contrast to transport vehicles where drivers typically travel for longer durations. Therefore, he concluded that driving a transport vehicle required more experience, energy, and a higher level of training. One of the requirements for a transport vehicle licence is a health certificate from a medical practitioner and driving certificate issued by a school. The transport vehicle licence is granted only after a successful driving test.
Bhushan pointed out that licences for different classes of vehicles require a different test. A person with a LMV licence could not be made automatically eligible to drive a transport vehicle. “The test of competence to drive shall be carried out in a vehicle of the type to which the application refers…I cannot be tested in a Maruti 800 car and drive a truck,” he said. If this was allowed, then a Maruti 800 driver would also become eligible to drive a road roller that weighs less than 7500 kilograms. Road rollers are a distinct class of vehicles found under Section 10 (2) of the MVA.
Driving the point further, Senior Advocate Archana Pathak Dave also added that unlike LMVs, a transport vehicle is placed at a higher level of public scrutiny. Further, unlike a LMV licence where a self declaration of medical fitness is sufficient, a transport vehicle needs a medical certificate from a medical practitioner. The training period required for a transport vehicle is also statutorily longer than the LMVs as per the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. Moreover, the syllabus for a learners licence for both classes of vehicles is also different. This aspect, she said, was overlooked in Mukund Dewangan.
Bhandari: Transport Vehicle actually means “medium and heavy” transport vehicles
Advocate Anuj Bhandari appearing for the respondents argued in support of Mukund dewangan. First, he detailed the history of the inclusion of “transport vehicles” as a class under the MVA. He submitted that the original text of the MVA had four types of vehicles. They were: (i) medium goods vehicles, (ii) medium passenger vehicles, (iii) heavy goods vehicles and (iv) heavy passenger vehicles. Heavy vehicles were ones that weighed more than 12000 kilograms, whereas medium vehicles fell within the class that weighed more than 7500 kilograms but less than 12000 kilograms. In 1994, Bhandari said, amendments to the MVA clubbed both these categories to form the package “transport vehicles.”
In this backdrop, Bhandari went on to argue that “transport vehicles” under the MVA meant medium and heavy vehicles. A person with a LMV licence was entitled to drive a light transport vehicle weighing less than 7500 kilograms.Whereas, additional requirements of a medical certificate and experience were only needed to drive medium and heavy transport vehicles weighing more than that.
He stated that Parliament changed the nomenclature by merging the four categories within one terminology to “simplify” the interpretation of the MVA. Accordingly, Mukund Dewangan was correct. Bhandari’s interpretation received pushback from Bhushan who pointed out that such construction was “adding words to the statute.” He stated that there are several precedents that suggest a plain reading of statutes. Thus, the MVA should be interpreted plainly.
As the clock sped to 4:00 PM, the bench directed the counsel to submit their notes summarising any remaining arguments and reserved judgement in the case. As they were departing, a counsel reminded them that the decision in the case would impact thousands of drivers who currently use LMVs as transport vehicles. Should the Constitution Bench rule that transport vehicles weighing less than 7500 kilograms require a separate licence, they should consider a transition period in a way that does not “spell doom”.