Source: Indian Express  

Introduction 

The Supreme Court has a significant issue concerning driving licenses. The case revolves around whether a license for a light motor vehicle (LMV) can be used to operate larger vehicles like tractors or road rollers. This question arose from a 2017 Supreme Court ruling that allowed such use. The current case challenges that decision, prompting a re-examination of Sections 2(21) and 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The verdict will clarify the scope and limitations of LMV licenses, potentially affecting millions of drivers across India. 

What is the Background and Court Observation of Mukund Dewangan v Oriental Insurance Company Limited,2017 ? 

• Background: 
  • In 2017, the Supreme Court addressed whether a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) license holder required a separate license to operate a transport vehicle. 
  • Section 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MVA) states that driving licenses specify the "classes" of vehicles the holder is permitted to operate, with "light motor vehicle" and "transport vehicle" listed as distinct classes. 
  • Section 2(21) of the MVA defines an LMV as "a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road-roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed 7500 kilograms". 
  • The 1994 amendment to the MVA introduced "transport vehicle" as a class, replacing previous classifications of "medium" or "heavy" passenger and goods vehicles. 
• Court Observations: 
  • The Supreme Court held that an LMV license holder is permitted to operate road-rollers, tractors, and "transport vehicles" with an unladen weight not exceeding 7,500 kg. 
  • The division Bench reasoned that applying the separate class of "transport vehicles" to vehicles falling within the LMV definition would lead to "absurd results". 
  • The Court illustrated this potential absurdity by noting that if the separate class were applied, an LMV license holder would be deemed unlicensed to drive their private car with a roof carrier or trailer attached, as it would then be classified as a transport vehicle. 
  • The Bench interpreted the legislative intent to avoid such impractical outcomes, thereby allowing LMV license holders to operate certain transport vehicles within the specified weight limit without requiring an additional license endorsement. 
  • The Court's interpretation sought to balance practical considerations with the statutory framework, recognizing the potential implications of a strict literal interpretation of the MVA provisions. 

What is the Background and Court Observation of M/S. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi & Ors.? 

• Background 
  • In July 2011, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ordered Bajaj Allianz General Insurance to pay compensation of Rs 5,02,800 in an accident involving an autorickshaw. 
  • The Rajasthan High Court, in August 2017, upheld the compensation order, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited,(2017). 
  • Bajaj Allianz appealed to the Supreme Court in 2018, arguing that the Mukund Dewangan decision failed to consider crucial provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act (MVA) differentiating between Light Motor Vehicles (LMVs) and transport vehicles. 
  • In March 2022, the Supreme Court acknowledged that certain provisions were not considered in Mukund Dewangan and referred the case to a Constitution Bench. 
  • The Union Ministry of Road Transport and Highways was asked to present its position on the matter. 
• Court Observations: 
  • The Attorney General for India argued that the Mukund Dewangan verdict appeared inconsistent with the legislative intent of the MVA. 
  • The Supreme Court deemed it appropriate for the Government to evaluate the entire matter before the Court embarked on an interpretative exercise. 
  • The Court directed the Centre to submit a "road map" for proposed amendments to the MVA after being informed of ongoing stakeholder consultations. 
  • On 16^th April, 2024, the Attorney General informed the Court that a proposed amendment was ready but requested deferment until after the Lok Sabha election. 
  • The amendment would be introduced in Parliament's Winter Session, commencing in December. 
  • The Constitution Bench is now tasked with interpreting the provisions of the MVA in light of the Mukund Dewangan judgment and potential legislative amendments, balancing road safety concerns with livelihood issues of commercial vehicle operators. 

What is a Light Motor Vehicle as per MVA? 

• Section 2(21) of the MVA provides the statutory definition of a "light motor vehicle." 
• The term "light motor vehicle" encompasses four categories of vehicles:  
  • a) Transport vehicle  
  • b) Omnibus  
  • c) Motor car  
  • d) Tractor or road-roller 
• For transport vehicles and omnibuses, the classification is based on the gross vehicle weight, which must not exceed 7500 kilograms. 
• For motor cars, tractors, and road-rollers, the classification is based on the unladen weight, which must not exceed 7500 kilograms. 
• The weight threshold of 7500 kilograms serves as the upper limit for all vehicles to be classified as light motor vehicles under this definition. 
• This definition creates a clear demarcation between light motor vehicles and heavier vehicles for licensing and regulation under the Act. 
• The inclusion of transport vehicles within this definition suggests that certain commercial vehicles may also fall under the category of light motor vehicles, provided they meet the specified weight criteria. 

What is Section 10 of MVA? 

• Section 10(1) mandates that every learner's licence and driving licence, with the exception of those issued under section 18, shall conform to the form and contain the information as prescribed by the Central Government. 
• Section 10(2) stipulates that a learner's licence or driving licence shall expressly entitle the holder to operate motor vehicles belonging to one or more of the following classes: a) Motorcycle without gear b) Motorcycle with gear c) Invalid carriage d) Light motor vehicle e) Transport vehicle f) Road-roller g) Motor vehicle of a specified description 
• The inclusion of "transport vehicle" as a separate class under subsection (2)(e) is noteworthy, as it distinguishes this category from other vehicle classes. 
• The provision allows for the issuance of licences that may authorize the holder to operate multiple classes of vehicles, as enumerated in the section. 
• The section provides a comprehensive classification system for motor vehicles, encompassing both personal and commercial transport categories. 
• The specification of "motor vehicle of a specified description" under subsection (2)(j) allows for flexibility in licensing for vehicles that may not fall within the other enumerated categories. 

Conclusion

The Supreme Court is re-examining whether a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) license allows the operation of larger vehicles, like tractors, based on previous rulings and legislative changes. The Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited,2017 case confirmed LMV licenses could cover certain transport vehicles, but the M/S. Bajaj Allianz v. Rambha Devi & Ors,2022 case has prompted a review of this interpretation. The Court, considering road safety and commercial vehicle operators' livelihoods, is seeking a balanced approach in light of possible amendments to the MVA.