Light Motor Vehicle License Holders Can Drive Transport Vehicles Weighing Less Than 7500 Kgs: Supreme Court

A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has clarified that a person holding a license to drive a ‘light motor vehicle’ (LMV) would be automatically entitled to drive a light transport vehicle with an unladen weight of 7500 kilograms.

A five-judge Bench comprising the Chief Justice of India Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice P.S. Narasimha, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Pankaj Mithal upheld a 2017 Judgment in making the clarification.

The Bench concluded, "A driver holding an Light Motor Vehicle license under 10(2)d with vehicles with gross vehicle weight under 7500 kg is permitted to operate transport vehicle without needing additional authorisation under Section 10(2)e of the Motor Vehicles Act specifically for the transport vehicle class," The Bench stated that for licensing purposes, "LMVs and Transport Vehicles are not entirely separate classes. An overlap exists between the two."

Besides the interpretation of provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act (MV Act), the case revolved around issues of road safety and the livelihood of a large number of persons driving vehicles for commercial purposes.

The Court observed that core driving skills expected to be mastered by all drivers are universal, regardless of whether the vehicle falls into transport or non transport category, adding that if the gross vehicle weight is within 7500 kgs, the "quintessential common driver" with a 'light motor vehicle' license can also drive a transport vehicle.

The Court said it was able to reach this conclusion since "no party has produced empirical data to demonstrate that Light Motor Vehicle driving license holders driving a transport vehicle is a significant cause for road accidents in India."

It was clarified that the additional eligibility criteria as specified in the MV Act and the Rules made under it would only apply to the following category of vehicles: medium vehicles, medium passenger vehicles, heavy goods vehicles and heavy passenger vehicles with gross weight exceeding 7500 kg vehicles. "The special eligibility requirement will continue to apply inter alia to e-carts, e-rickshaws and vehicles carrying hazardous goods."

The Court stated that the emphasis on 'transport vehicles' in the licensing scheme has to be understood only in the context of medium and heavy vehicles. It added that the Court's harmonious reading of the definition of 'light motor vehicle' and Section 3 (Necessity for driving license) also aligns with the objective of 1994 amendment in Section 10(2) which simplified the licensing procedure. Section 3, among other things, mandates that transport vehicles can only driven by persons holding license specifically entitling them to do so, subject to exceptions.

"Our present interpretation on how the licensing regime is to operate for drivers under the statutory scheme is unlikely to compromise the road safety concerns. This would also effectively address the livelihood issue for drivers operating transport vehicles who clock maximum hours behind the wheels in legally operating transport vehicles weighing below 7500 kgs with their light motor vehicle driving licenses," the Court said.

The issue in the present case was referred to a Constitution Bench in March 2022 when a three-judge Bench while hearing certain insurance companies concluded that the Court in Mukund Dewangan v Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2017) had “not noticed” some provisions of the MV Act while holding that a transport vehicle and omnibus, with gross weight not exceeding 7500 kgs, would be a light motor vehicle.

The insurance companies had moved Court arguing that light motor vehicle driving license holders should not be allowed to drive transport vehicles and that both categories of vehicles are treated differently by the MV Act.

The Court said that the Judgment in Mukul Dewangan did not analyse the provisions distinguishing transport and non transport vehicles and that a statutory scheme on motor vehicles is more nuanced than the simple weight distinction made in the Judgment. It added that the Court in that case had failed to notice Section 31(2) and 31(3) which specify transport and non transport vehicles.

However, the Court said the overlooked provisions would not alter the eventual pronouncement and that it noticed no glaring error or omission that would alter the outcome of the case. The Court upheld the Judgment in Mukul Dewangan.

During the course of hearing the present petition, the Attorney General for India R. Venkataramani informed the Bench that the government is planning certain amendments to the MV Act, which are likely to be tabled during the upcoming Lok Sabha winter session. "The AG has informed the Court that a legislative exercise is underway to address statutory lacunas," the Court recorded in its Judgment.

"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, the licensing regime cannot remain static," the Court said.

Cause Title: Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Rambha Devi And Ors. [C.A. No. 841/2018]

Click here to read/download the Judgment