Page 1 1

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.5826 OF 2011

Mukund Dewangan … Appellant

Vs.

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. etc. … Respondents

[With SLP [C] Nos.32828, 32833 and 32835/2010, 8709-8710 and

8712-8713/2014, 20072, 3300 and 3302/2015, 887-890/2013,

16082/2012, 28455-28456/2013, CA No. 6379/2013, SLP (C)

Nos.13008, 15759-15760 and 14333-14334/2014, 6429/2015, 36364-

36365/2014, 15924/2015, CA No.9990/14, SLP (C) Nos. 8704-

8706/2014, CA Nos. 4068-4069/2012, SLP (C) No. 32827/2010 and

CA No.8992/2012]

ORDER

ARUN MISHRA, J.

1.The question raised is whether for the drivers having licence to

drive light motor vehicles there is a necessity of obtaining

Page 2 2

endorsement to drive the transport vehicle when the transport vehicle

is of class of light motor vehicle.

2.We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. For

consideration of aforesaid question, it is necessary to refer to various

provisions and decisions.

3.Driving licence has been defined in section 2(10) of the Act of

1988. The provision is extracted hereinbelow :

“2(10) “driving licence" means the licence issued by a

competent authority under Chapter II authorising the person

specified therein to drive, otherwise than as a learner, a motor

vehicle or a motor vehicle of any specified class or description.”

Gross vehicle weight has been defined in section 2(15) thus :

“2(15) “gross vehicle weight" means in respect of any vehicle

the total weight of the vehicle and load certified and registered

by the registering authority as permissible for that vehicle;”

Heavy goods vehicle has been defined in section 2(16) to mean:

“2(16) “heavy goods vehicle" means any goods carriage the

gross vehicle weight of which, or a tractor or a road-roller the

unladen weight of either of which, exceeds 12,000 kilograms;”

Heavy passenger motor vehicle has been defined in section

2(17) thus :

“2(17) “heavy passenger motor vehicle" means any public

service vehicle or private service vehicle or educational

institution bus or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of any of

which; or a motor-car the unladen weight of which, exceeds

12,000 kilograms;”

Page 3 3

Light motor vehicle has been defined in section 2(21) of the Act

thus :

“2(21) “light motor vehicle" means 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 7,500 kilograms;”

Medium goods vehicle has been defined in section 2(23) to

mean :

“2(23) “medium goods vehicle" means any goods carriage

other than a light motor vehicle or a heavy goods vehicle;”

Medium passenger motor vehicle is defined under section 2(24)

thus :

“2(24) “medium passenger motor vehicle" means any public

service vehicle or private service vehicle, or educational

institution bus other than a motor-cycle, invalid carriage, light

motor vehicle or heavy passenger motor vehicle;”

Motor car has been defined in section 2(26) of the Act of 1988

thus :

“2(26) “motor-car" means any motor vehicle other than a

transport vehicle, omnibus, road-roller, tractor, motor-cycle or

invalid carriage;”

“Omnibus” has been defined in section 2(29) thus :

“2(29) “omnibus" means any motor vehicle constructed or

adapted to carry more than six persons excluding the driver;”

“Tractor” has been defined in section 2(44) of the Act thus :

Page 4 4

“2(44) “tractor" means a motor vehicle which is not itself

constructed to carry any load (other than equipment used for

the purpose of propulsion); but excludes a road-roller;”

“Transport vehicle has been defined in section 2(47) thus :

“2(47) “transport vehicle" means a public service vehicle, a

goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private

service vehicle;”

“Unladen weight” has been defined in section 2(48) thus :

“2(48) “unladen weight" means the weight of a vehicle or

trailer including all equipments ordinarily used with the

vehicle or trailer when working, but excluding the weight of a

driver or attendant; and where alternative parts or bodies are

used the unladen weight of the vehicle means the weight of the

vehicle with the heaviest such alternative part or body;”

4.The provisions under section 2 define heavy goods vehicles,

heavy passenger motor vehicle, medium goods vehicle, medium

passenger motor vehicle and light motor vehicle separately. Section

2(21) deals with class of Light Motor Vehicle which includes a

transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of

which does not exceed 7500 kgs. or a motor car or tractor or road

roller, the unladen weight of any of which does not exceed 7500 kgs.

The transport vehicle has been defined in section 2(47), omnibus has

been defined in section 2(29). However, the transport vehicle or

omnibus the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 kgs.,

has been included in section 2(21) of the Act of 1988. The gross

vehicle weight has been defined in section 2(15). In the case of Light

Page 5 5

Motor Vehicle, the total weight of the transport vehicle or omnibus,

the load certified by the Registering Authority should not exceed 7500

kgs. and in case of motor car, tractor or road roller, it is necessary that

unladen weight as defined in section 2(48) of the Act of 1988 should

not exceed 7500 kgs.

5.To dilate further upon the issue, it is necessary to take note of

other provisions of the Act. Public service vehicle, goods carriage, an

educational institution bus and private service vehicle are included in

transport vehicles. They are defined in Sections 2(35), 2(14), 2(11)

and 2(33) respectively. The provisions are extracted hereunder:-

“2(35) “public service vehicle" means any motor vehicle used

or adapted to be used for the carriage of passengers for hire or

reward, and includes a maxi-cab, a motor-cab, contract

carriage, and stage carriage;”

“2(14) “goods carriage" means any motor vehicle constructed

or adapted for use solely for the carriage of goods, or any

motor vehicle not so constructed or adapted when used for the

carriage of goods;”

“2(11) “educational institution bus" means an omnibus, which

is owned by a college, school or other educational institution

and used solely for the purpose of transporting students or

staff of the educational institution in connection with any of its

activities;”

“2(33) “private service vehicle" means a motor vehicle

constructed or adapted to carry more than six persons

excluding the driver and ordinarily used by or on behalf of the

owner of such vehicle for the purpose of carrying persons for,

or in connection with, his trade or business otherwise than for

Page 6 6

hire or reward but does not include a motor vehicle used for

public purposes;”

6.Section 3 of the Act of 1988 deals with the necessity for driving

licence. Same is extracted below :

“3. Necessity for driving licence.-- (1) 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 [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 licence specifically entitles him so to do.

(2) The conditions subject to which sub-section (1) shall

not apply to a person receiving instructions in driving a motor

vehicle shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central

Government.”

7.Section 9 deals with grant of driving licence which reads as

under :

“9. Grant of driving licence.-- (1) Any person who is not for the

time being disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving

licence may apply to the licensing authority having jurisdiction

in the area—

(i) in which he ordinarily resides or carries on business, or

(ii)in which the school or establishment referred to in section 12

from where he is receiving or has received instruction in

driving a motor vehicle is situated,

for the issue to him of a driving licence.

(2) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be in such

form and shall be accompanied by such fee and such

documents as may be prescribed by the Central Government.

(3) If the applicant passes such test as may be prescribed by the

Central Government, he shall be issued the driving licence:

Page 7 7

Provided that no such test shall be necessary where the

applicant produces proof to show that –

(a)(i) the applicant has previously held a driving licence and

that the period between the date of expiry of that licence

and the date of such application does not exceed five years;

or

(ii)the applicant holds or has previously held a driving

licence to drive such class of vehicle issued under

section 18; or

(iii)the applicant holds a driving licence to drive such class

of vehicle issued by a competent authority of any

country outside India, subject to the condition that the

applicant complies with the provisions of sub –section

(3) of section 8,

(b) the applicant is not suffering from any disease or disability

which is likely to cause the driving by him to be a source of

danger to the public; and the licensing authority may, for that

purpose, require the applicant to produce a medical certificate

in the same form and in the same manner as is referred to in

sub-section (3) of section 8.

Provided further that where the application is for a

driving licence to drive a motor vehicle (not being a transport

vehicle), the licensing authority may exempt the applicant from

the test of competence to drive prescribed under this sub-

section, if the applicant possesses a driving certificate issued by

an automobile association recognised in this behalf by the State

Government.

(4) Where the application is for a licence to drive a transport

vehicle, no such authorisation shall be granted to any applicant

unless he possesses such minimum educational qualification as

may be prescribed by the Central Government and a driving

certificate issued by a school or establishment referred to in

section 12.

Page 8 8

(5) Where the applicant does not pass the test, he may be

permitted to reappear for the test after a period of seven days:

Provided that where the applicant does not pass the test

even after three appearances, he shall not be qualified to

reappear for such test before the expiry of a period of sixty

days from the date of last such test.

(6) The test of competence to drive shall be carried out in a

vehicle of the type to which the application refers:

Provided that a person who passed a test in driving a motor

cycle with gear shall be deemed also to have passed a test in

driving a motor cycle without gear.

(7) When any application has been duly made to the

appropriate licensing authority and the applicant has satisfied

such authority of his competence to drive, the licensing

authority shall issue the applicant a driving licence unless the

applicant is for the time being disqualified for holding or

obtaining a driving licence:

Provided that a licensing authority may issue a driving

licence to drive a motor cycle or a light motor vehicle

notwithstanding that it is not the appropriate licensing

authority, if the licensing authority is satisfied that there is

good and sufficient reason for the applicant's inability to apply

to the appropriate licensing authority:

Provided further that the licensing authority shall not issue

a new driving licence to the applicant, if he had previously held

a driving licence, unless it is satisfied that there is good and

sufficient reason for his inability to obtain a duplicate copy of

his former licence.

Page 9 9

(8) If the licensing authority is satisfied, after giving the

applicant an opportunity of being heard, that he—

(a) is a habitual criminal or a habitual drunkard; or

(b) is a habitual addict to any narcotic drug or psychotropic

substance within the meaning of the Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; (61 of 1985); or

(c)is a person whose licence to drive any motor vehicle has,

at any time earlier, been revoked,

it may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, make an order

refusing to issue a driving licence to such person and any

person aggrieved by an order made by a licensing authority

under this sub-section may, within thirty days of the receipt of

the order, appeal to the prescribed authority.

(9) Any driving licence for driving a motor cycle in force

immediately before the commencement of this Act shall, after

such commencement, be deemed to be effective for driving a

motor cycle with or without gear.”

8.The application has to be made in such form as may be

prescribed. Section 10 deals with the form and contents of the licence

to drive. Section 10 before its amendment made in 1994 by Act 54 of

1994 provided as under :

“10. Form and contents of licences to driver.-- (1) Every

learner's licence and driving licence, except a driving licence

issued under section 18, shall be in such form and shall contain

such information as may be prescribed by the Central

Government.

Page 10 10

(2) A learner's licence or, as the case may be, driving licence

shall also be expressed as entitling the holder to drive a motor

vehicle of one or more of the following classes, namely:--

(a) motor cycle without gear;

(b) motor cycle with gear;

(c) invalid carriage;

(d) light motor vehicle;

(e) medium goods vehicle;

(f) medium passenger motor vehicle;

(g) heavy goods vehicle;

(h) heavy passenger motor vehicle;”

(i) road-roller;

(j) motor vehicle of a specified description. ”

9.It is clear from the provisions of section 10(2) that the classes

of vehicles have been separately provided. Light motor vehicle has

been provided in section 10(2)(d). Transport vehicle had been inserted

in 1994 in place of sections 10(2)(e) to 10(2)(h), in place of medium

goods vehicle as provided in section 10(2)(e), medium passenger

motor vehicle provided in section 10(2)(f), heavy goods vehicle in

section 10(2)(g) and heavy passenger motor vehicle in section 10(2)

(h). Thus it is apparent that transport vehicles were included under the

Act of 1988 under the category of “light motor vehicle”, “heavy motor

vehicle” etc. as per gross vehicle weight or unladen weight, as the

case may be, is apparent from a bare reading of the aforesaid

classification given in section 10(2) of the Act read with definition of

light motor vehicle as defined in section 2(21) of the Act.

Page 11 11

The provisions contained in section 10 of the Act had been

amended vide Amendment Act 54 of 1994. The Statement of Objects

and Reasons of the Amendment Act 54 of 1994 reads :

“Amendment Act 54 of 1994 - Statement of Objects and Reasons.

– The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) consolidated and

rationalised various laws regulating road transport. The Act

came into force with effect from 1

st

July, 1989 replacing the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.

2. After the coming into force of the Motor Vehicles Act,

1988, Government received a number of representations and

suggestions from the state govt. transport operators and

members of public regarding the inconvenience faced by them

because of the operation of some of the provisions of the 1988

Act. A Review Committee was, therefore, constituted by the

Government in March, 1990 to examine and review the 1988

Act.

3. The recommendations of the Review Committee were

forwarded to the State Governments for comments and they

generally agree with these recommendations. The Government

also considered a large number of representations received,

after finalisation of the Report of the Review Committee, from

the transport operators and public for making amendments in

the Act. The draft of the proposals based on the

recommendation of the Review Committee and representations

from the public were placed before the Transport Development

Council for seeking their views in the matter. The important

suggestions made by the Transport Development Council relate

to, or are on account of, -

(a) The introduction of newer type of vehicles and fast

increasing number of both commercial and personal vehicles in

the country.

(b) Providing adequate compensation to victims of road

accidents without going into longdrawn procedure;

(c) Protecting consumers’ interest in Transport Sector;

(d) Concern for road safety standards, transport of

hazardous chemicals and pollution control;

Page 12 12

(e) Delegation of greater powers to State Transport

Authorities and rationalising the role of public authorities in

certain matters;

(f) The simplification of procedures and policy

liberalisation in the field of Road Transport;

(g) Enhancing penalties for traffic offenders.

4. Therefore, the proposed legislation has been prepared

in the light of the above background. The Bill inter alia

provides for –

(a) modification and amplification of certain definitions

of new type of vehicles ;

(b) simplification of procedure for grant of driving

licences;

(c) putting restrictions on the alteration of vehicles;

(d) certain exemptions for vehicles running on non-

polluting fuels;

(e) ceilings on individuals or company holdings removed

to curb “benami” holdings;

(f) states authorised to appoint one or more State

Transport Appellate Tribunals;

(g) punitive checks on the use of such components that

do not conform to the prescribed standards by manufactures,

and also stocking / sale by the traders;

(h) increase in the amount of compensation of the

victims of hit and run cases;

(i) removal of time limit for filling of application by

road accident victims for compensation;

(j) punishment in case of certain offences is made

stringent;

(k) a new pre-determined formula for payment of

compensation to road accident victims on the basis of

age/income, which is more liberal and rational.

5. The Law Commission in its 119th Report had recommended

that every application for a claim be made to the Claims

Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the

accident occurred or to the Claims Tribunal within the local

Page 13 13

limits of whose jurisdiction the claimant resides or carries on

business or within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the

defendant resides, at the option of the claimant. The bill also

makes necessary provision to give effect to the said

recommendation.”

Section 10 has been amended vide Act 54/1994 to the following

effect :

“10. Form and contents of licences to drive.—(1) Every

learner's licence and driving licence, except a driving licence

issued under section 18, shall be in such form and shall

contain such information as may be prescribed by the Central

Government.

(2)A learner's licence or, as the case may be, driving licence

shall also be expressed as entitling the holder to drive a

motor vehicle of one or more of the following classes,

namely:--

(a)motor cycle without gear;

(b)motor cycle with gear;

(c)invalid carriage;

(d)light motor vehicle;

(e)transport vehicle;

(i) road-roller;

(j) motor vehicle of a specified description.”

10. Form 4 which was in vogue till 28.3.2001 as prescribed under

Rule 14 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (hereinafter

referred to as ‘the Rules of 1989’), is extracted hereunder :

“FORM 4

[See Rule 14]

Form of Application for Licence to drive a Motor Vehicle

To, [passport size

Photograph]

THE LICENSING AUTHORITY,

……………………………………..

Page 14 14

I apply for a licence to enable me to drive vehicles of the

following description:-

(a)Motor cycle without gear

(b)Motor cycle with gear

(c)Invalid Carriage

(d)Light Motor Vehicle

(e)Medium Goods Vehicle

(f)Medium Passenger Motor Vehicle

(g)Heavy Goods Vehicle

(h)Heavy Passenger Motor Vehicle

(i)Road roller

(j)Motor Vehicle of the following description.

Particulars to be furnished by the Applicant

1. Name ………………………………

2. Son/wife/daughter of ……………………………….

3.Permanent address ………………………………

(Proof to be enclosed)

4.Temporary address/ Official address (if any) ………….

5. Date of birth …………………………………….

(Proof to be enclosed)

6. Educational qualification ………………………..

7. Identification mark(1)……………………… (2)

………………………

8. Optional/Blood Group -- RH factor…………………

9. Have you previously held driving licence?……………

Page 15 15

If so, give details.

10. Particulars and date of every conviction

which has been ordered to be endorsed

on any licence held by the applicant….……………..

11. Have you been disqualified for obtaining

a licence to drive? If so, for what reason?...………..

12. Have you been subjected to a driving test as to your fitness

or ability to drive a vehicle in respect of which a licence to

drive is applied for? If so, give the following details :-

Date of test Testing Authority Result of test

(1)

(2)

(3)

13. I enclose three copies of my recent [passport size photographs]

(where laminated card is used, no photographs are required)

… …………………

14. I enclose Learner’s licence No. ………….. dated …………….

issued by Licensing Authority.

15. I enclose the Driving Certificate No. ….…………….dated

…………issued by……………..

16. I have submitted along with my application for learner’s

licence the written consent of parent / guardian.

17. I have submitted along with the application for learner’s

licence./I enclose the medical fitness certificate.

18. I am exempted from the medical test under rule 6 of the

Central Motor Vehicles Rules , 1989.

19. I am exempted from preliminary test under rule 11 (2) of the

Central Motor Vehicles Rules 1989.

20. I have paid the fee of Rs.

I hereby declare that to the best of my knowledge and belief

the particulars given above are true.

Page 16 16

Note : Strike out whichever is inapplicable.

Date : ……………..

Signature/Thumb impression

of applicant.

Certificate of test of competence to drive

The applicant has passed the test prescribed under rule

15 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. The test was

conducted on (here enter the registration mark and description

of the vehicle)………..…… on (date).

The applicant has failed in the test.

(The details of deficiency to be listed out.)

Date_________________

Signature of Testing Authority

Full name and designation

Two specimen signatures of applicant:

Strike out whichever is inapplicable.”

11. It is apparent from the Form prescribed under Rule 14 till

28.3.2001, the aforesaid classification of vehicles remained the same

As provided in Section 10(2) of the Act of 1988 for the first time

transport vehicle was inserted w.e.f. 28.3.2001 by deleting the existing

classes, medium passenger and goods vehicle, heavy goods vehicle

and heavy passenger motor vehicles to bring in tune with Section

10(2)(e) to (h). Form 4 has undergone other changes with respect to

item ‘a’ motorcycle without gear which was substituted vide GSR

Page 17 17

684(E) on 5.10.1999 w.e.f. 22.10.1999 and again substituted by GSR

76(E) dated 31.1.2000 w.e.f. 31.1.2000. With aforesaid changes

brought about by notifications in 1989 and 2000 in Section 10(2)(a)

we are not concerned here. Amended Form ‘4’ is extracted hereunder:

“FORM 4

[See Rule 14(1)]

Form of Application for Licence to Drive a Motor Vehicle

To

The Licensing Authority

……………………………… Space for

………………………………

Passport size

photograph

I apply for a licence to enable me to drive vehicles of the

following description:-

(a) Motor cycle without gear

(b) Motor cycle with gear

(c) Invalid carriage

(d) Light Motor vehicle

(e) Transport vehicle

(f) Medium passenger motor vehicle

[*****]

(i)Road roller

(j) Motor vehicles of the following description:

Particulars to be furnished by Applicant

1.Full Name……………………

2.Son/Wife/Daughter of ………………………… ...........

3.Permanent address ……………………… ……………

(Proof to be enclosed) ………………………… .............

4.Temporary address/ Official address (if any)..................

5.Date of birth………………………… ..

(proof to be enclosed) …..………… ................................

6. Educational qualification .……………………… .......

7. Identification mark(s) 1.……………… ………

2….…………………….

8.Optional

Page 18 18

Blood Group

RH FACTOR

9. Have you previously held driving ……………… ...

Licence? If so, give details.

10. Particulars and date of every……………………… ..

conviction which has been ordered to be

endorsed on any licence held by applicant

11. Have you been disqualified for………………………

obtaining a Licence to drive? If so,

for what reason?

12. Have you been subjected to a driving

test as to your fitness or ability

to drive a vehicle in respect of which

a licence to drive is applied for ?

If so, give the following details. …………………………

Date of test Testing Authority Result of test

1.

2.

13. I enclose 3 copies of my recent (passport size photograph)

(where laminated card is used no photographs are required).

14. I enclose the learner’s Licence No .................. dated

………… issued by Licensing Authority.

15. I enclose the Driving Certificate No. .............

Dated ................ issued by ........................

16. I have submitted along with my application for Learner’s

Licence the written consent of parent/guardian.

17. I have submitted along with the application for learner’s

licence/I enclose the medical fitness certificate.

18. I am exempted from the medical test under rule 6 of the

Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.

19. I am exempted from preliminary test under rule 11(2) of

the Central Motor Vehicles Rules. 1989.

20. I have paid the fee of Rs…………..

I hereby declare that to the best of my knowledge and belief

the particulars given above are true.

* Strike out whichever is inapplicable.

Date ................... Signature/Thumb

impression of Applicant

Certificate of test of competence to drive

The applicant has passed the test prescribed under rule 15 of

the Central Motor Vehicles Rules 1989. The test conducted on

(here enter the registration mark and description of the

vehicle)..................................... on (date) …………..

The applicant has failed in the test.

Page 19 19

(The details of the deficiency to be listed out)

Date .................. Signature of Testing Authority

Full name & designation

Two specimen signatures of Applicant:

1.

2.

Strike out whichever is inapplicable.”

12.Thus, as per Amendment of Section 10 vide Act 54 of 1994,

there is deletion of categories of medium goods vehicle, medium

passenger motor vehicle, heavy goods vehicle and heavy passenger

motor vehicle and these have been substituted by the classification

“transport vehicle”. It is pertinent to note here that the definition and

classification of light motor vehicle in the Act remains intact as it

existed. It is also apparent from the Statement of Objects and Reasons

of the Amendment Act No.54 of 1994 that the transport operators and

members of public faced inconvenience because of operation of some

of the provisions of the Act of 1988. It was intended for simplification

of procedures and policy liberalization and it became necessary due to

introduction of newer type of vehicles and faced increasing numbers

of both personal and commercial vehicles in the country. Hence, it

was intended to modify and amplify certain definitions of new types

of vehicles for simplification of procedure for grant of driving

licences as provided in para 4(a) and (b) of the Statement of Objects

Page 20 20

and Reasons. The question is whether intendment appears not to touch

the classification of light motor vehicle which has to be understood in

the light of the definition in section 2(21) of the Act of 1988 and it

was never intended that the transport vehicles of light motor vehicle

category should be taken out of the purview of the existing

classification of light motor vehicles and the transport vehicles as

inserted in section 10 has to be understood in the light of the

amendment brought about vide deletion of the provisions of medium

goods vehicle, medium passenger motor vehicle, heavy goods vehicle

and heavy passenger motor vehicle. Thus, no change had been

brought about with respect to the transport vehicles of class of light

motor vehicle as defined in section 2(21) of the Act of 1988.

13.To consider further on the issue, certain rules and forms are also

required to be referred to. Rule 8 provides for minimum educational

qualification for driving transport vehicles which is 8

th

standard.

However proviso makes it clear that the qualification of 8

th

standard

shall not apply in the case of renewal of driving licence to drive a

transport vehicle and/or addition of another class of transport vehicle

to the driving licence already held before the commencement of the

Page 21 21

Motor Vehicles Act, 2007. Rule 8 of the Rules of 1989 inserted on

10.4.2007 is quoted below :

“8. Minimum educational qualification for driving transport

vehicles.-- The minimum educational qualification in respect

of an applicant for obtaining a licence to drive a transport

vehicle shall be a pass in the eighth standard:

Provided that the minimum educational qualification

specified in this rule shall not apply in the case of –

(i)renewal of a driving licence to drive a transport

vehicle : or

(ii)addition of another class of transport vehicle to the

driving licence, already held before the commencement

of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Rules, 2007.”

14.Earlier Rule 8 was omitted by GSR No.933(E) dated

28.10.1989 w.e.f. 28.10.1989. The Rule has been inserted in the year

2007 and it is provided that Eighth standard qualification will not

apply in the case of addition of another class of transport vehicle to

the driving licence. Thus, it is clear that Rule 8 contemplates addition

of transport vehicle of other category than the existing one in the

licence. Question arises whether that refers to the addition to light

motor vehicle’s category, and gross vehicle weight or the unladen

weight of vehicle in section 2(21) does not exceed 7500 kgs. would

remain a light motor vehicle. Section 10 of the Act contains the

provisions as to class of vehicles of the transport vehicle and light

motor vehicle separately. The question arises whether the transport

Page 22 22

vehicle insertion in Section 10(2)(e) is confined to the category of

substitution made by deleting existing sections 10(2)(e), (f), (g) and

(h) which were for medium goods vehicle, medium passenger motor

vehicle, heavy goods vehicle and heavy passenger motor vehicle, and

in case “transport vehicle” even of the weight of light motor vehicle is

treated in one category under section 10(2)(e) in that case whether any

purpose would be left behind insertion of Rule 8 again in the year

2007.

15.Rule 16 provides for the Form of driving licence. Same shall

be issued or renewed by licensing authority in Form 6. Rule 16 and

Form 6 are quoted below :

“16. Form of driving licence.—(1) Every driving licence

issued or renewed by a licensing authority shall be in Form 6.

(2) Where the licensing authority has the necessary apparatus,

[for the issue of a laminated card type or Smart Card type

driving licence, such card type or Smart Card type driving

licence, as may be specified in the Notification issued by the

concerned State Government or Union Territory

Administration] shall be in Form 7.

(3) On and from the date of commencement of this sub-rule,

every driving licence issued or renewed by the licensing

authority shall be in Form 7.

(4) Every International Driving Permit issued by a licensing

authority shall be in Form 6-A and shall be valid for a period

of not more than one year from the date of issue, as the case

may be, or till the validity of the driving licence, whichever is

earlier.

Page 23 23

(5) The automobile associations authorised by the State

Government/ Union Territory Administration shall be allowed

to issue International Driving Permit to their own members as

also others subject to counter-signature by competent

authority.”

“FORM 6

[See Rule 16(1)]

(To be printed in book form of the size six centimeters by eight

centimeters)

FORM OF DRIVING LICENCE

Name of the Licence holder………………………..…

Son/wife/daughter of…………………………..

[Passport size

photograph]

Name to be written across the photograph……………….

(Part of the seal and signature Specimen signature/

of the Licencing Authority Thumb impression of

to be on the photograph the holder of the

and part on the driving licence) licence

Signature and designation

of the Licencing Authority

1. Driving Licence Number …………………..

2. Date of issue …………………..

3. Name …………………...

4. Son /Wife/ Daughter of …………………..

5. Temporary address/ official …………………..

address (if any)

6. Permanent address …………………..

7. Date of Birth …………………..

8. Educational Qualifications ………………….

9. Optional ………………….

Blood Group

RH Factor

10. The holder of this licence is licenced

to drive throughout India vehicles of

the following description:-

Motor Cycle without gear

Motor Cycle with gear

Page 24 24

Invalid Carriage

Light Motor Vehicle

[Transport vehicle]

Medium passenger motor vehicle

11. A Motor vehicle of the following description :

The licence to drive a motor The licence to drive

vehicle other than transport transport vehicle is

vehicle is valid valid from …. to…..

from ……. to………

Name and designation of Signature and designation

the Authority who of the Licencing Authority

conducted the driving test.

Authorisation to drive transport vehicle

Number………………………. Date…………….

Authorised to drive transport vehicle with effect from

……….

Badge Number………………………….

Signature ………

Designation of the licensing Authority

Name and designation of the authority who conducted the

driving test.

Space for addition of other classes of vehicles

Number…………………… Date……………

Also authorized to drive the following class or description of

motor vehicles:-

Name and designation Signature and designation

of the Authority of Licencing Authority

who conducted

the driving test.

Dated:………….. Signature and designation

of the Licencing Authority

Space for renewal of driving licence

The licence to drive motor The licence to drive

vehicles other than transport transport vehicles

vehicles is hereby renewed. is hereby renewed

From…….. to ………… From…………to…..……

Signature of Licencing Signature of Licencing

Authority Authority

From…………to…………. From…………to…………

Page 25 25

Signature of Licencing Signature of Licencing Authority

Authority

From………….to……………

Signature of Licencing Authority

Space for endorsement by Court

Space for endorsement by licensing authority

It is pertinent to mention that in the Form light motor vehicle

and transport vehicle are separately given.

16.Rule 17 of the Rules deals with the additional driving licence.

Same has to be applied for in Form 8. Rule 17 and Form 8 read thus :

“17. Addition to driving licence.-- (1) An application for

addition of another class of description of motor vehicle to the

driving licence shall be made in Form 8 to the licensing

authority and shall be accompanied by—

(a) an effective learner’s licence and driving licence held by the

applicant;

Date

Section and Rule

Fine or other punishment

Date

Proceedings number and date

Disqualification period

Page 26 26

(b) in the case of an application for addition of a transport

vehicle, the driving certificate in Form 5;

(c) [* * *]

(d) appropriate fee as specified in Rule 32.

(2) The provisions of sub-section (1), sub-section (3) and sub-

section (4) of Section 9 shall, insofar as may be, apply in

relation to an application under sub-section (1) as they apply in

relation to an application for the grant of a driving licence.”

Form 8 as provided in Rule 17(1) of the Rules reads as under :

“FORM 8

[See Rule 17(1)]

APPLICATION FOR THE ADDITION OF A NEW CLASS OF

VEHICLE TO A DRIVING LICENCE

To

The Licensing Authority,

…………………………

I, Shri/Smt./ Kumari…... hereby apply for the addition of the

following class/classes of motor vehicles to the attached licence:-

(a) Motor cycle without gear

(b) Motor cycle with gear

(c) Invalid carriages,

(d) Light motor vehicles,

(e) Transport vehicle

(f) Medium passenger motor vehicles

(g) x x x

(h) x x x

(i) Road rollers,

(j) Motor vehicle of the following description :

I enclose,

(a) a Medical Certificate in Form 1-A

(b) Learner’s licence in Form 3,

(c) Driving licence in Form 6/7,

I hereby apply for the addition of the following :

(d) Driving Certificate in Form 5 if the application is to drive a

transport vehicle,

(e) I have paid the fee of Rs. … … … … … … … … … ..

Dated: …….. Signature or thumb-impression

Page 27 27

of the Applicant

CERTIFICATE OF TEST OF COMPETENCE TO DRIVE

The applicant has passed/failed in the test specified in Rule 15

of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. The test was

conducted on a ….(here enter description of vehicles) on date.…

Signature of Testing Authority

Name & Designation”

17.Form 8 also separately provide the light motor vehicle and

transport vehicle. Question arises whether in Forms 4, 5 and 8,

transport vehicle has to be understood for the categories of vehicles

for which substitution has been made in section 10(2) by deleting the

existing provisions of section 10(2)(e), (f), (g) and (h). However the

form still contains the provision with respect to “medium passenger

motor vehicles”, notwithstanding the insertion of the changed

classification of the vehicles in section 10(2) of the Act or it may be

printer’s omission to delete ?

18.Rule 34 has also been referred to which deals with the trade

certificate. Rule 34(2) provides that separate application shall be made

for the classes of vehicles prescribed therein. Rule 34 is quoted below:

“34. Trade certificate.-- (1) An application for the grant or

renewal of a trade certificate shall be made in Form 16 and

shall be accompanied by the appropriate fee as specified in Rule

81.

Page 28 28

(2) Separate applications shall be made for each of the following

classes of vehicles, namely:—

(a) motorcycle;

(b) invalid carriage;

(c) light motor vehicle;

(d) medium passenger motor vehicle;

(e) medium goods vehicle;

(f) heavy passenger motor vehicle;

(g) heavy goods vehicle;

(h) any other motor vehicle of a specified description.”

Rule 34 also makes a distinction between light motor vehicle,

medium passenger motor vehicle, medium goods vehicle, heavy

passenger motor vehicle and heavy goods vehicle. As per Rule 126 of

the Rules, proto-type of every motor vehicle is subject to test by the

Vehicle Research & Development Establishment of the Ministry of

Defence of the Government of India or Automotive Research

Association of India. Testing Agency has to conduct test as provided

in Rule 126A to verify whether these vehicles conform to the

provisions of the Rules made under section 110 of the Act. All the

relevant information has to be inserted as per section 41 of the Act in

the registration particulars as may be prescribed by the Central

Government. Application for registration of motor vehicle has to be

made in Form 20. Class of vehicle, gross vehicle weight as well as

unladen weight are to be mentioned.

Page 29 29

19.Rule 31 of the Rules contains a syllabus for imparting

instructions in driving of motor vehicles in schools or establishments.

That syllabus is divided in parts A to K. Part A deals with driving

theory-1. B- Traffic education-I. C-light vehicles driving practice. D-

Vehicle mechanism and repairs. E-Medium and heavy vehicle driving.

F- Traffic education-II. G- Public relations for drivers. H-Heavy

vehicle driving practice. I-Fire hazards. J- Vehicle maintenance. K-

First-aid.

20.It is apparent from the syllabus that there is a separate syllabus

for light motor vehicle and for medium and heavy vehicle driving

practice. No separate syllabus has been provided for transport

vehicles. They are included in the aforesaid categories. Thus, it

appears that as per the weight of the vehicles, the syllabus has been

provided and different teaching is prescribed as per different weights

of the vehicles. A driving licence has to be issued as per Rule 16 in

Form 6. Form 6 also separately provides for light motor vehicle,

transport vehicle.

21.The Central Government, inter alia, has the power to frame the

rules provided under section 27 of the Act, regarding minimum

qualification, regarding forms and contents of the licences referred to

Page 30 30

in sub-section (1) of section 10 and providing for authority to grant

licences and other matters as provided in section 27. State

Government is enjoined to maintain a register of motor vehicles under

Rule 75 as provided in Form 41 which includes gross vehicle weight,

unladen weight etc. Thus it is clear that the scheme of the Act, Rules

and the Forms emphasise the gross vehicle weight and unladen weight

which is required to be mentioned specifically in the State registration

particulars etc. so as to ascertain the class of vehicle whether it is

light, medium or heavy etc.

22.In Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kokilaben Chandravadan &

Ors. (1987) 2 SCC 654, it was held that in order to consider the

intention of the Legislature in the course of interpretation, motive and

philosophy of the relevant provisions keeping in mind the goals to be

achieved by enacting the same, has to be taken into consideration. It

was observed thus :

“12. The defence built on the exclusion clause cannot succeed

for three reasons, viz.:

(1)On a true interpretation of the relevant clause

which interpretation is at peace with the

conscience of Section 96, the condition excluding

driving by a person not duly licensed is not

absolute and the promisor is absolved once it is

shown that he has done everything in his power

Page 31 31

to keep, honour and fulfil the promise and he

himself is not guilty of a deliberate breach.

(2)Even if it is treated as an absolute promise, there

is substantial compliance therewith upon an

express or implied mandate being given to the

licensed driver not to allow the vehicle to be left

unattended so that it happens to be driven by an

unlicensed driver.

(3)The exclusion clause has to be “read down” in

order that it is not at war with the “main purpose” of

the provisions enacted for the protection of victims of

accidents so that the promisor is exculpated when he

does everything in his power to keep the promise.

13. In order to divine the intention of the legislature in the

course of interpretation of the relevant provisions there can

scarcely be a better test than that of probing into the motive

and philosophy of the relevant provisions keeping in mind the

goals to be achieved by enacting the same. Ordinarily it is not

the concern of the legislature whether the owner of the vehicle

insures his vehicle or not. If the vehicle is not insured any legal

liability arising on account of third party risk will have to be

borne by the owner of the vehicle. Why then has the legislature

insisted on a person using a motor vehicle in a public place to

insure against third party risk by enacting Section 94? Surely

the obligation has not been imposed in order to promote the

business of the insurers engaged in the business of automobile

insurance. The provision has been inserted in order to protect

the members of the community travelling in vehicles or using

the roads from the risk attendant upon the user of motor

vehicles on the roads. The law may provide for compensation

to victims of the accidents who sustain injuries in the course of

an automobile accident or compensation to the dependants of

the victims in the case of a fatal accident. However, such

protection would remain a protection on paper unless there is a

guarantee that the compensation awarded by the courts would

be recoverable from the persons held liable for the

consequences of the accident. A court can only pass an award

or a decree. It cannot ensure that such an award or decree

results in the amount awarded being actually recovered, from

the person held liable who may not have the resources. The

exercise undertaken by the law courts would then be an

exercise in futility. And the outcome of the legal proceedings

which by the very nature of things involve the time cost and

Page 32 32

money cost invested from the scarce resources of the

community would make a mockery of the injured victims, or

the dependants of the deceased victim of the accident, who

themselves are obliged to incur not inconsiderable expenditure

of time, money and energy in litigation. To overcome this ugly

situation the legislature has made it obligatory that no motor

vehicle shall be used unless a third party insurance is in force.

To use the vehicle without the requisite third party insurance

being in force is a penal offence (Section 94 of the Motor

Vehicles Act). The legislature was also faced with another

problem. The insurance policy might provide for liability

walled in by conditions which may be specified in the contract

of policy. In order to make the protection real, the legislature

has also provided that the judgment obtained shall not be

defeated by the incorporation of exclusion clauses other than

those authorised by Section 96 and by providing that except

and save to the extent permitted by Section 96 it will be the

obligation of the insurance company to satisfy the judgment

obtained against the persons insured against third party risk

(vide Section 96). In other words, the legislature has insisted

and made it incumbent on the user of a motor vehicle to be

armed with an insurance policy covering third party risks

which is in conformity with the provisions enacted by the

legislature. It is so provided in order to ensure that the injured

victims of automobile accidents or the dependants of the

victims of fatal accidents are really compensated in terms of

money and not in terms of promise. Such a benign provision

enacted by the legislature having regard to the fact that in the

modern age the use of motor vehicles notwithstanding the

attendant hazards, has become an inescapable fact of life, has

to be interpreted in a meaningful manner which serves rather

than defeats the purpose of the legislation. The provision has

therefore to be interpreted in the twilight of the aforesaid

perspective.”

14. Section 96(2)(b)(ii) extends immunity to the insurance

company if a breach is committed of the condition excluding

driving by a named person or persons or by any person who is

not fully licensed, or by any person who has been disqualified

for holding or obtaining a driving licence during the period of

disqualification. The expression “breach” is of great

significance. The dictionary meaning of “breach” is

“infringement or violation of a promise or obligation” (See

Collins English Dictionary). It is therefore abundantly clear

that the insurer will have to establish that the insured is guilty

of an infringement or violation of a promise that a person who

Page 33 33

is duly licensed will have to be in charge of the vehicle. The

very concept of infringement or violation of the promise that

the expression “breach” carries within itself induces an

inference that the violation or infringement on the part of the

promisor must be a wilful infringement or violation. If the

insured is not at all at fault and has not done anything he

should not have done or is not amiss in any respect how can it

be conscientiously posited that he has committed a breach? It

is only when the insured himself places the vehicle in charge of

a person who does not hold a driving licence, that it can be said

that he is “guilty” of the breach of the promise that the vehicle

will be driven by a licensed driver. It must be established by

the insurance company that the breach was on the part of the

insured and that it was the insured who was guilty of violating

the promise or infringement of the contract. Unless the insured

is at fault and is guilty of a breach the insurer cannot escape

from the obligation to indemnify the insured and successfully

contend that he is exonerated having regard to the fact that the

promisor (the insured) committed a breach of his promise. Not

when some mishap occurs by some mischance. When the

insured has done everything within his power inasmuch as he

has engaged a licensed driver and has placed the vehicle in

charge of a licensed driver, with the express or implied

mandate to drive himself it cannot be said that the insured is

guilty of any breach. And it is only in case of a breach or a

violation of the promise on the part of the insured that the

insurer can hide under the umbrella of the exclusion clause. In

a way the question is as to whether the promise made by the

insured is an absolute promise or whether he is exculpated on

the basis of some legal doctrine. The discussion made in para

239 of Breach of Contract by Carter (1984 Edn.) under the

head Proof of Breach, gives an inkling of this dimension of the

matter. In the present case even if the promise were to be

treated as an absolute promise the grounds for exculpation can

be found from Section 84 of the Act which reads thus:

“84. Stationary vehicles—No person driving or in charge

of a motor vehicle shall cause or allow the vehicle to

remain stationary in any public place, unless there is in

the driver’s seat a person duly licensed to drive the

vehicle or unless the mechanism has been stopped and a

brake or brakes applied or such other measure taken as

to ensure that the vehicle cannot accidentally be put in

motion in the absence of the driver.”

Page 34 34

In view of this provision apart from the implied mandate to the

licensed driver not to place an unlicensed person in charge of

the vehicle, there is also a statutory obligation on the said

person not to leave the vehicle unattended and not to place it in

charge of an unlicensed driver. What is prohibited by law must

be treated as a mandate to the employee and should be

considered sufficient in the eye of law for excusing non-

compliance with the conditions. It cannot therefore in any case

be considered as a breach on the part of the insured. To

construe the provision differently would be to rewrite the

provision by engrafting a rider to the effect that in the event of

the motor vehicle happening to be driven by an unlicensed

person, regardless of the circumstances in which such a

contingency occurs, the insured will not be liable under the

contract of insurance. It needs to be emphasised that it is not

the contract of insurance which is being interpreted. It is the

statutory provision defining the conditions of exemption which

is being interpreted. These must therefore be interpreted in the

spirit in which the same have been enacted accompanied by an

anxiety to ensure that the protection is not nullified by the

backward looking interpretation which serves to defeat the

provision rather than to fulfil its life-aim. To do otherwise

would amount to nullifying the benevolent provision by

reading it with a non-benevolent eye and with a mind not

tuned to the purpose and philosophy of the legislation without

being informed of the true goals sought to be achieved. What

the legislature has given, the Court cannot deprive of by way of

an exercise in interpretation when the view which renders the

provision potent is equally plausible as the one which renders

the provision impotent. In fact it appears that the former view

is more plausible apart from the fact that it is more desirable.

When the option is between opting for a view which will relieve

the distress and misery of the victims of accidents or their

dependants on the one hand and the equally plausible view

which will reduce the profitability of the insurer in regard to

the occupational hazard undertaken by him by way of business

activity, there is hardly any choice. The Court cannot but opt

for the former view. Even if one were to make a strictly

doctrinaire approach, the very same conclusion would emerge

in obeisance to the doctrine of “reading down” the exclusion

clause in the light of the “main purpose” of the provision so

that the “exclusion clause” does not cross swords with the

“main purpose” highlighted earlier. The effort must be to

harmonize the two instead of allowing the exclusion clause to

snipe successfully at the main purpose. This theory which

Page 35 35

needs no support is supported by Carter’s “Breach of

Contract” vide paragraph 251. To quote:

“Notwithstanding the general ability of contracting

parties to agree to exclusion clauses which operate to

define obligations there exists a rule, usually referred to

as the “main purpose rule”, which may limit the

application of wide exclusion clauses defining a

promisor’s contractual obligations. For example, in

Glynn v. Margetson & Co (1893 AC 351, 357, Lord

Halsbury, L.C. stated:

It seems to me that in construing this document,

which is a contract of carriage between the

parties, one must in the first instance look at the

whole instrument and not at one part of it only.

Looking at the whole instrument, and seeing

what one must regard ... as its main purpose, one

must reject words, indeed whole provisions, if

they are inconsistent with what one assumes to

be the main purpose of the contract.’

Although this rule played a role in the development of the

doctrine of fundamental breach, the continued validity of the

rule was acknowledged when the doctrine was rejected by the

House of Lords in Suissee Atlantique Societe d’ Armement

Maritime S.A. v. N.V. Rotterdamsche Kolen Centrale (1967) 1 AC

361, 393, 412-413, 427-428, 430. Accordingly, wide exclusion

clauses will be read down to the extent to which they are

inconsistent with the main purpose, or object of the contract.

(emphasis supplied)”

23.A 3-Judge Bench of this Court in Sohan Lal Passi v. P. Sesh

Reddy & Ors. (1996) 5 SCC 21 examined the correctness of the

aforesaid view in Skandia’s case (supra) and has laid down thus :

“12. … According to us, Section 96(2)(b)(ii) should not be

interpreted in a technical manner. Sub-section (2) of Section 96

only enables the insurance company to defend itself in respect

Page 36 36

of the liability to pay compensation on any of the grounds

mentioned in sub-section (2) including that there has been a

contravention of the condition excluding the vehicle being

driven by any person who is not duly licensed. This bar on the

face of it operates on the person insured. If the person who has

got the vehicle insured has allowed the vehicle to be driven by a

person who is not duly licensed then only that clause shall be

attracted. In a case where the person who has got insured the

vehicle with the insurance company, has appointed a duly

licensed driver and if the accident takes place when the vehicle

is being driven by a person not duly licensed on the basis of the

authority of the driver duly authorised to drive the vehicle

whether the insurance company in that event shall be absolved

from its liability? The expression ‘breach’ occurring in Section

96(2)(b) means infringement or violation of a promise or

obligation. As such the insurance company will have to

establish that the insured was guilty of an infringement or

violation of a promise. The insurer has also to satisfy the

Tribunal or the Court that such violation or infringement on

the part of the insured was wilful. If the insured has taken all

precautions by appointing a duly licensed driver to drive the

vehicle in question and it has not been established that it was

the insured who allowed the vehicle to be driven by a person

not duly licensed, then the insurance company cannot

repudiate its statutory liability under sub-section (1) of Section

96…..”

24.It is relevant to note the various decisions rendered by this

Court. In Ashok Gangadhar Maratha v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

(1999) 6 SCC 620, this Court considered the definition of light motor

vehicle and held thus :

“10. The definition of "light motor vehicle" as given in clause

(21) of Section 2 of the Act can apply only to a "light goods

vehicle" or a "light transport vehicle". A "light motor vehicle"

otherwise has to be covered by the definition of "motor

vehicle" or "vehicle" as given in clause (28) of Section 2 of the

Act. A light motor vehicle cannot always mean a light goods

carriage. Light motor vehicle can be a non-transport vehicle as

well.”

Page 37 37

25.In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Zaharulnisha & Ors. (2008)

12 SCC 385 this Court has referred to the decision in National

Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh (2004) 3 SCC 297 to the effect

that if a person has been given a licence for a particular type of

vehicle he cannot be said to have no licence for driving another type

of vehicle which is of the same category but of a different type. As for

example when a person is granted a licence for driving a light motor

vehicle he can drive either a car or a jeep and it is not necessary that

he must have driving licence both for car and jeep separately. This

Court has laid down that since the driver was having licence to drive

heavy motor vehicle but at the time of accident was driving a scooter

which is a totally different class of vehicle, the act was held to be in

violation of Section 10(2) of the MV Act. The relevant provisions read

thus :

“18.A three-Judge Bench of this Court in National

Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh (2004) 3 SCC 297 has

extensively dealt with the meaning, application and

interpretation of various provisions, including Sections 3(2),

4(3), 10(2) and 149 of the MV Act. In para 47 of the judgment,

the learned Judges have held that if a person has been given a

licence for a particular type of vehicle as specified therein, he

cannot be said to have no licence for driving another type of

vehicle which is of the same category but of different type. As

for example, when a person is granted a licence for driving a

light motor vehicle he can drive either a car or a jeep and it is

not necessary that he must have driving licence both for car

Page 38 38

and jeep separately. In para 48, it is held as under: (SCC pp.

324-25)

“48. Furthermore, the insurance company with a view

to avoid its liabilities is not only required to show that

the conditions laid down under Section 149(2)(a) or (b)

are satisfied but is further required to establish that

there has been a breach on the part of the insured. By

reason of the provisions contained in the 1988 Act, a

more extensive remedy has been conferred upon those

who have obtained judgment against the user of a

vehicle and after a certificate of insurance is delivered

in terms of Section 147(3). After a third party has

obtained a judgment against any person insured by the

policy in respect of a liability required to be covered by

Section 145, the same must be satisfied by the insurer,

notwithstanding that the insurer may be entitled to

avoid or to cancel the policy or may in fact have done

so. The same obligation applies in respect of a judgment

against a person not insured by the policy in respect of

such a liability, but who would have been covered if the

policy had covered the liability of all persons, except

that in respect of liability for death or bodily injury.”

19.The judgment (in Swaran Singh case) proceeds to hold

that under the MV Act, holding of a valid driving licence is one

of the conditions of the contract of insurance. Driving of a

vehicle without a valid licence is an offence. However, the

question herein is whether a third party involved in an

accident is entitled to the amount of compensation granted by

the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal although the driver of

the vehicle at the relevant time might not have had a valid

driving licence but would be entitled to recover the same from

the owner or driver thereof. It is trite that where the insurers,

relying upon the provisions of violation of law by the assured,

take an exception to pay the assured or a third party, they must

prove a wilful violation of the law by the assured. In some

cases, violation of criminal law, particularly violation of the

provisions of the MV Act, may result in absolving the insurers

but, the same may not necessarily hold good in the case of a

third party. In any event, the exception applies only to acts

done intentionally or “so recklessly as to denote that the

assured did not care what the consequences of his act might

be”. The provisions of sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 149 of

the MV Act may be considered as to the liability of the insurer

to satisfy the decree at the first instance. The liability of the

Page 39 39

insurer is a statutory one. The liability of the insurer to satisfy

the decree passed in favour of a third party is also statutory.

20.The learned Judges having considered the entire

material and relevant provisions of the MV Act and conflict of

decisions of various High Courts and this Court on the

question of defences available to the insurance companies in

defending the claims of the victims of the accident arising due

to the harsh and negligent driving of the vehicle which is

insured with the insurance companies, proceeded to record the

following summary of findings: (Swaran Singh case, SCC pp.

341-42, para 110)

“110. (i) Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

providing compulsory insurance of vehicles against

third-party risks is a social welfare legislation to extend

relief by compensation to victims of accidents caused by

use of motor vehicles. The provisions of compulsory

insurance coverage of all vehicles are with this

paramount object and the provisions of the Act have to

be so interpreted as to effectuate the said object.

(ii) An insurer is entitled to raise a defence in a claim

petition filed under Section 163-A or Section 166 of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 inter alia in terms of Section

149(2)(a)(ii) of the said Act.

(iii)The breach of policy condition e.g. disqualification of

the driver or invalid driving licence of the driver, as

contained in sub-section (2)(a)(ii) of Section 149, has to

be proved to have been committed by the insured for

avoiding liability by the insurer. Mere absence, fake or

invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver

for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves

defences available to the insurer against either the

insured or the third parties. To avoid its liability

towards the insured, the insurer has to prove that the

insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise

reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition

of the policy regarding use of vehicles by duly licensed

driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the

relevant time.

(iv)Insurance companies, however, with a view to avoid

their liability must not only establish the available

defence(s) raised in the said proceedings but must also

Page 40 40

establish ‘breach’ on the part of the owner of the

vehicle; the burden of proof wherefor would be on

them.

(v) The court cannot lay down any criteria as to how the

said burden would be discharged, inasmuch as the same

would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each

case.

(vi) Even where the insurer is able to prove breach on

the part of the insured concerning the policy condition

regarding holding of a valid licence by the driver or his

qualification to drive during the relevant period, the

insurer would not be allowed to avoid its liability

towards the insured unless the said breach or breaches

on the condition of driving licence is/are so fundamental

as are found to have contributed to the cause of the

accident. The Tribunals in interpreting the policy

conditions would apply “the rule of main purpose” and

the concept of “fundamental breach” to allow defences

available to the insured under Section 149(2) of the Act.

(vii) The question as to whether the owner has taken

reasonable care to find out as to whether the driving

licence produced by the driver, (a fake one or

otherwise), does not fulfil the requirements of law or not

will have to be determined in each case.

(viii) If a vehicle at the time of accident was driven by a

person having a learner’s licence, the insurance

companies would be liable to satisfy the decree.

(ix) The Claims Tribunal constituted under Section 165

read with Section 168 is empowered to adjudicate all

claims in respect of the accidents involving death or of

bodily injury or damage to property of third party

arising in use of motor vehicle. The said power of the

Tribunal is not restricted to decide the claims inter se

between the claimant or claimants on one side and the

insured, insurer and driver on the other. In the course

of adjudicating the claim for compensation and to

decide the availability of defence or defences to the

insurer, the Tribunal has necessarily the power and

jurisdiction to decide disputes inter se between the

insurer and the insured. The decision rendered on the

claims and disputes inter se between the insurer and

Page 41 41

insured in the course of adjudication of claim for

compensation by the claimants and the award made

thereon is enforceable and executable in the same

manner as provided in Section 174 of the Act for

enforcement and execution of the award in favour of the

claimants.

(x) Where on adjudication of the claim under the Act

the Tribunal arrives at a conclusion that the insurer has

satisfactorily proved its defence in accordance with the

provisions of Section 149(2) read with sub-section (7), as

interpreted by this Court above, the Tribunal can direct

that the insurer is liable to be reimbursed by the insured

for the compensation and other amounts which it has

been compelled to pay to the third party under the

award of the Tribunal. Such determination of claim by

the Tribunal will be enforceable and the money found

due to the insurer from the insured will be recoverable

on a certificate issued by the Tribunal to the Collector in

the same manner under Section 174 of the Act as

arrears of land revenue. The certificate will be issued

for the recovery as arrears of land revenue only if, as

required by sub-section (3) of Section 168 of the Act the

insured fails to deposit the amount awarded in favour of

the insurer within thirty days from the date of

announcement of the award by the Tribunal.

(xi) The provisions contained in sub-section (4) with the

proviso thereunder and sub-section (5) which are

intended to cover specified contingencies mentioned

therein to enable the insurer to recover the amount paid

under the contract of insurance on behalf of the insured

can be taken recourse to by the Tribunal and be

extended to the claims and defences of the insurer

against the insured by relegating them to the remedy

before regular court in cases where on given facts and

circumstances adjudication of their claims inter se

might delay the adjudication of the claims of the

victims.”

21. In the light of the above settled proposition of law, the

appellant Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay the

amount of compensation to the claimants for the cause of death

of Shukurullah in road accident which had occurred due to

rash and negligent driving of scooter by Ram Surat who

admittedly had no valid and effective licence to drive the

Page 42 42

vehicle on the day of accident. The scooterist was possessing a

driving licence of driving HMV and he was driving a totally

different class of vehicle, which act of his is in violation of

Section 10(2) of the MV Act.”

26.In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Prabhu Lal (2008) 1 SCC

696 this Court considered the question of driving a transport vehicle

by a driver having valid licence to ply only light motor vehicle, no

endorsement was made on the licence enabling the driver to drive

transport vehicle. A two Judge Bench of this Court has laid down that

the owner of the said vehicle cannot claim indemnification in such

circumstances from the insurer. It has been held that goods carrier will

be a transport vehicle. The accident took place on 17.4.1998. The

vehicle involved was Tata 709. The District Forum held it to be a

goods carrier and covered by transport vehicle whereas the State

Commission held that it was a light motor vehicle relying on the gross

weight of the vehicle. This Court laid down that the said Commission

was wrong in reversing the finding of the District Forum. This Court

has considered the question thus :

“38. We find considerable force in the submission of the

learned counsel for the Insurance Company. We also find that

the District Forum considered the question in its proper

perspective and held that the vehicle driven by Ram Narain

was covered by the category of transport vehicle under Clause

(47) of Section 2 of the Act. Section 3, therefore, required the

driver to have an endorsement which would entitle him to ply

such vehicle. It is not even the case of the complainant that

Page 43 43

there was such endorsement and Ram Narain was allowed to

ply transport vehicle. On the contrary, the case of the

complainant was that it was Mohd. Julfikar who was driving

the vehicle. To us, therefore, the District Forum was right in

holding that Ram Narain could not have driven the vehicle in

question.

39. The learned counsel for the complainant, however, heavily

relied upon Ashok Gangadhar (1999) 6 SCC 620. In that case,

the appellant was the owner of a truck, light motor vehicle,

which was insured with the respondent Insurance Company.

The vehicle met with an accident and a claim was lodged by

the complainant before the Consumer Commission. It was

contended by the Insurance Company that the truck was a

goods carriage or a transport vehicle and since the driver of

the truck was holding a driving licence issued in Form 6 to

drive light motor vehicle only, he was not authorised to drive

transport vehicle as there was no endorsement on his driving

licence authorising him to drive such transport vehicle. The

aggrieved complainant approached this Court. Allowing the

appeal and setting aside the order passed by the Commission,

this Court held that the driver of the vehicle was holding a

valid driving licence for driving a light motor vehicle and there

was no material on record to show that he was disqualified

from holding an effective valid licence at the time of accident.

In view of those facts, the Court held that the policy did not

insist on the driver to have a licence to drive a transport

vehicle by obtaining a specific endorsement. Considering the

definition of “light motor vehicle” as given in Clause (21) of

Section 2 of the Act, this Court held that such light motor

vehicle (LMV) cannot always mean a light goods carriage. A

light motor vehicle (LMV) can be a non-transport vehicle as

well. The Court proceeded to observe that since there was

neither a pleading nor a permit produced on record, the

vehicle remained as a light motor vehicle. And though it can be

said to have been designed to be used as a transport vehicle or

a goods carriage, it could not be so held on account of statutory

prohibition contained in Section 66 of the Act to be a transport

vehicle. It was, therefore, held that the Commission was not

right in rejecting the claim of the claimant. Accordingly this

Court set aside the order passed by the Commission and

directed the Insurance Company to pay compensation to the

complainant.

40. It is no doubt true that in Ashok Gangadhar (supra) in

spite of the fact that the driver was holding valid driving

Page 44 44

licence to ply light motor vehicle (LMV), this Court upheld the

claim and ordered the Insurance Company to pay

compensation. But, in our considered opinion, the learned

counsel for the Insurance Company is right in submitting that

it was because of the fact that there was neither pleading nor

proof as regards the permit issued by the Transport Authority.

In absence of pleading and proof, this Court held that, it could

not be said that the driver had no valid licence to ply the

vehicle which met with an accident and he could not be

deprived of the compensation. This is clear if one reads para 11

of the judgment, which reads thus: (SCC p. 626)

“11. To reiterate, since a vehicle cannot be used as a

transport vehicle on a public road unless there is a permit

issued by the Regional Transport Authority for that

purpose and since in the instant case there is neither a

pleading to that effect by any party nor is there any permit

on record, the vehicle in question would remain a light

motor vehicle. The respondent also does not say that any

permit was granted to the appellant for plying the

vehicle as a transport vehicle under Section 66 of the

Act. Moreover, on the date of the accident, the vehicle

was not carrying any goods and though it could be said

to have been designed to be used as a transport vehicle

or a goods carrier, it cannot be so held on account of the

statutory prohibition contained in Section 66 of the

Act.”

(emphasis supplied)

41. In our judgment, Ashok Gangadhar (supra) did not lay

down that the driver holding licence to drive a light motor

vehicle need not have an endorsement to drive transport

vehicle and yet he can drive such vehicle. It was on the peculiar

facts of the case, as the Insurance Company neither pleaded

nor proved that the vehicle was transport vehicle by placing on

record the permit issued by the Transport Authority that the

Insurance Company was held liable.

42. In the present case, all the facts were before the District

Forum. It considered the assertion of the complainant and

defence of the Insurance Company in the light of the relevant

documentary evidence and held that it was established that the

vehicle which met with an accident was a “transport vehicle”.

Ram Narain was having a licence to drive light motor vehicle

only and there was no endorsement as required by Section 3 of

Page 45 45

the Act read with Rule 16 of the Rules and Form 6. In view of

necessary documents on record, the Insurance Company was

right in submitting that Ashok Gangadhar (supra) does not

apply to the case on hand and the Insurance Company was not

liable.”

27.In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Roshanben Rahemansha

Fakir & Anr. (2008) 8 SCC 253 the driver was holder of a licence to

drive a three-wheeler. This Court noted that the licence was not meant

to be used to drive a transport vehicle. The vehicle involved was an

autorickshaw delivery van and was a goods carrier. Contention was

raised that the driver of the vehicle was not holder of a legal and valid

licence. Question arose whether driver was holding a licence to drive

a transport vehicle. This Court held thus :

“10. Section 10 of the Act provides for classes of the driving

licence. Different classes of vehicle have been defined in

different provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. The “transport

vehicle” is defined in Section 2(47) of the Act to mean a public

service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus

or a private service vehicle. We have noticed hereinbefore the

provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 41. We have also

noticed the notification issued by the Central Government in

this behalf. The said notification clearly postulates that a

three-wheeled vehicle for transport of passengers or goods

comes within the purview of Class 5 of the Table appended

thereto. The licence granted in favour of the said Salim

Amadbhai goes to show that the same was granted for a vehicle

other than the transport vehicle. It was valid from 13.5.2004 to

12.5.2024. Section 14(2)(a) provides that a driving licence

issued or renewed under the Act shall, in case of a licence to

drive a transport vehicle will be effective for a period of three

years whereas in the case of any other vehicle it can be issued

or renewed for a period of 20 years from the date of issuance or

Page 46 46

renewal. The fact that the licence was granted for a period of

20 years, thus, clearly shows that Salim Amadbhai, driver of

the vehicle, was not granted a valid driving licence for driving

a transport vehicle.

x x x x x

13.From the discussions made hereinbefore, it is evident

that the driver of the vehicle was not holding an effective

licence. Possession of an effective licence is necessary in terms

of Section 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act.”

28.In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Annappa Irappa Nesaria

alias Nesaragi & Ors. (2008) 3 SCC 464, a Division Bench of this

Court has considered the question with respect to an accident which

took place on 9.12.1999 involving a Matador van, a “goods carriage”

vehicle. The driver was holding a licence to drive light motor vehicle.

Submission was raised before this Court that “light motor vehicle”

cannot be a transport vehicle. Forms 4 and 6 were also referred along

with Rules 14 and 16 of the 1989 Rules. After referring to Form 4 as it

has been amended w.e.f. 28.3.2001, this Court has held that transport

vehicle has been substituted for “medium goods vehicle” and “heavy

goods vehicle”, and continued at the relevant time, to cover both

“light passenger carriage vehicle” and “light goods carriage vehicle”.

The driver who had a valid licence to drive a light motor vehicle,

therefore, was authorized to drive a light goods vehicle as well. This

Court has laid down thus :

Page 47 47

“20.From what has been noticed hereinbefore, it is evident

that “transport vehicle” has now been substituted for “medium

goods vehicle” and “heavy goods vehicle”. The light motor

vehicle continued, at the relevant point of time to cover both

“light passenger carriage vehicle” and “light goods carriage

vehicle”. A driver who had a valid licence to drive a light

motor vehicle, therefore, was authorized to drive a light goods

vehicle as well.

21.The amendments carried out in the Rules having a

prospective operation, the licence held by the driver of the

vehicle in question cannot be said to be invalid in law.”

29.Thus, this Court has opined that prior to the amendment made

in the form in 2001 a person holding a licence to drive “light motor

vehicle” could have driven “light passenger carriage vehicle” and

“light goods carriage vehicle” also.

30.In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Angad Kol & Ors. (2009) 11

SCC 356, this Court has considered the decision in National

Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Annappa Irappa Nesaria (supra) and Prabhu

Lal (supra). The accident in the said case took place on 31.10.2004. A

mini door auto dashed against the insured. Question arose whether the

driver was not having an effective driving licence to drive “goods

carriage vehicle”. Driver was holding a licence to drive motor-cycle

and light motor vehicle. Licence was granted for a period of 20 years.

Page 48 48

Therefore, this Court presumed that it was meant for the purpose of a

vehicle other than a transport vehicle. This Court observed thus :

“21.Licence having been granted for a period of 20 years, a

presumption, therefore, arises that it was meant for the

purpose of a vehicle other than a transport vehicle. Had the

driving licence been granted for transport vehicle, the tenure

thereof could not have exceeded to three years.”

31.This Court observed that the grant of licence to drive transport

vehicle became effective from 28.3.2001 i.e. date on which the form

was amended and held that the vehicle was a “goods vehicle” as such

the driver did not hold a valid driving licence for driving a “goods

vehicle”.

32.In S.Iyyapan v. United India Insurance Co. (2013) 7 SCC 62,

this Court has considered the decisions in Ashok Gangadhar (supra),

Annappa Irappa Nesaria (supra), Prabhu Lal (supra) and other

decisions and laid down thus :

“18. In the instant case, admittedly the driver was holding a

valid driving licence to drive light motor vehicle. There is no

dispute that the motor vehicle in question, by which accident

took place, was Mahindra Maxi Cab. Merely because the

driver did not get any endorsement in the driving licence to

drive Mahindra Maxi Cab, which is a light motor vehicle, the

High Court has committed grave error of law in holding that

the insurer is not liable to pay compensation because the driver

was not holding the licence to drive the commercial vehicle.

The impugned judgment is, therefore, liable to be set aside.”

Page 49 49

33.This Court in Kulwant Singh & Ors. v. Oriental Insurance Co.

Ltd. (2015) 2 SCC 186, referring to the decisions of this Court in

S.Iyyapan (supra) and Annappa Irappa Nesaria (supra) has laid down

that when one driver is holding a licence to drive light motor vehicle,

he can drive commercial vehicle of that category. This Court has

considered the question thus :

“8. We find that the judgments relied upon cover the issue in

favour of the appellants. In Annappa Irappa Nesaria (2008) 3

SCC 464, this Court referred to the provisions of Sections 2(21)

and (23) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which are definitions

of “light motor vehicle” and “medium goods vehicle”

respectively and the rules prescribing the forms for the licence

i.e. Rule 14 and Form 4. It was concluded: (SCC p. 468, para

20)

“20. From what has been noticed hereinbefore, it is

evident that ‘transport vehicle’ has now been

substituted for ‘medium goods vehicle’ and ‘heavy

goods vehicle’. The light motor vehicle continued, at the

relevant point of time to cover both ‘light passenger

carriage vehicle’ and ‘light goods carriage vehicle’. A

driver who had a valid licence to drive a light motor

vehicle, therefore, was authorised to drive a light goods

vehicle as well.”

9. In S. Iyyapan (2013) 7 SCC 62, the question was whether the

driver who had a licence to drive “light motor vehicle” could

drive “light motor vehicle” used as a commercial vehicle,

without obtaining endorsement to drive a commercial vehicle.

It was held that in such a case, the insurance company could

not disown its liability. It was observed: (SCC p. 77, para 18)

“18. In the instant case, admittedly the driver was

holding a valid driving licence to drive light motor

vehicle. There is no dispute that the motor vehicle in

question, by which accident took place, was Mahindra

Maxi Cab. Merely because the driver did not get any

endorsement in the driving licence to drive Mahindra

Maxi Cab, which is a light motor vehicle, the High

Page 50 50

Court has committed grave error of law in holding that

the insurer is not liable to pay compensation because the

driver was not holding the licence to drive the

commercial vehicle. The impugned judgment [Civil

Misc. Appeal No. 1016 of 2002, order dated 31-10-2008

(Mad)] is, therefore, liable to be set aside.”

10. No contrary view has been brought to our notice.

11. Accordingly, we are of the view that there was no breach of

any condition of insurance policy, in the present case, entitling

the Insurance Company to recovery rights.”

34.The decision in Nagashetty v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

& Ors. (2001) 8 SCC 56 has also been referred in which it has been

laid down that the tractor will be used for carrying goods. The goods

will be carried in a trailer attached to it. Thus it was held that the

holder having an effective driving licence can drive a tractor, if used

for carrying goods. He would not become disqualified to drive a

tractor if a trailer is attached to it. The contention that it was a

transport vehicle, as trailer was attached to it, consequently, driver

was not holding a valid licence, was rejected. This Court considered

the submission and held as under :

“9. Relying on these definitions, Mr S.C. Sharda submitted

that admittedly the trailer was filled with stones. He submitted

that once a trailer was attached to the tractor the tractor

became a transport vehicle as it was used for carriage of goods.

He submitted that Section 10(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act

provides for grant of licences to drive specific types of vehicles.

He submitted that the driver only had a licence to drive a

tractor. He submitted that the driver did not have a licence to

drive a transport vehicle. He submitted that therefore it could

Page 51 51

not be said that the driver had an effective and valid driving

licence to drive a goods carriage or a transport vehicle. He

submitted that thus the driver did not have a valid driving

licence to drive the type of vehicle he was driving. He

submitted that as the driver did not have a valid driving

licence to drive a transport vehicle, the Insurance Company

could not be made liable. He submitted that the High Court

was right in so holding.

10. We are unable to accept the submissions of Mr S.C. Sharda.

It is an admitted fact that the driver had a valid and effective

licence to drive a tractor. Undoubtedly under Section 10, a

licence is granted to drive specific categories of motor vehicles.

The question is whether merely because a trailer was attached

to the tractor and the tractor was used for carrying goods, the

licence to drive a tractor becomes ineffective. If the argument

of Mr S.C. Sharda is to be accepted, then every time an owner

of a private car, who has a licence to drive a light motor

vehicle, attaches a roof carrier to his car or a trailer to his car

and carries goods thereon, the light motor vehicle would

become a transport vehicle and the owner would be deemed to

have no licence to drive that vehicle. It would lead to absurd

results. Merely because a trailer is added either to a tractor or

to a motor vehicle by itself does not make that tractor or motor

vehicle a transport vehicle. The tractor or motor vehicle

remains a tractor or motor vehicle. If a person has a valid

driving licence to drive a tractor or a motor vehicle, he

continues to have a valid licence to drive that tractor or motor

vehicle even if a trailer is attached to it and some goods are

carried in it. In other words, a person having a valid driving

licence to drive a particular category of vehicle does not

become disabled to drive that vehicle merely because a trailer

is added to that vehicle.

11. In this case we find that the Insurance Company, when

issuing the insurance policy, had also so understood. The

insurance policy has been issued for a tractor. In this insurance

policy, an additional premium of Rs.12 has been taken for a

trailer. Therefore the insurance policy covers not just the

tractor but also a trailer attached to the tractor. The insurance

policy provides as follows for the “persons or classes of persons

entitled to drive”:

“Persons or classes of persons entitled to drive.—Any

person including insured provided that the person

driving holds an effective driving licence at the time of

Page 52 52

the accident and is not disqualified from holding or

obtaining such a licence:

Provided also that the person holding an effective

learner’s licence may also drive the vehicle when not

used for the transport of goods at the time of the

accident and that such a person satisfies the

requirements of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles

Rules, 1989, limitations as to use.”

12. The policy is for a tractor. The “effective driving licence” is

thus for a tractor. The restriction on a learner driving the

tractor when used for transporting goods shows that the policy

itself contemplates that the tractor could be used for carriage

of goods. The tractor by itself could not carry goods. The goods

would be carried in a trailer attached to it. That is why the

extra premium for a trailer. The restriction placed on a person

holding a learner’s licence i.e. not to drive when goods are

being carried is not there for a permanent licence-holder. Thus

a permanent licence-holder having an effective/valid licence to

drive a tractor can drive even when the tractor is used for

carrying goods. When the policy itself so permits, the High

Court was wrong in coming to the conclusion that a person

having a valid driving licence to drive a tractor would become

disqualified to drive the tractor if a trailer was attached to it.”

35.“Transport vehicle” as defined in section 2(47) means a public

service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a

private service vehicle. Public service vehicle has been defined in

section 2(35) to mean any motor vehicle used or adapted to be used

for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward, and includes a

maxicab, a motorcab, contract carriage, and stage carriage. “Goods

carriage” which is also a transport vehicle, is defined in section 2(14)

to mean any motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use solely for

the carriage of goods, or any motor vehicle not so constructed or

Page 53 53

adapted when used for the carriage of goods. It was submitted that a

person holding licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle who is driving a

vehicle registered for private use, is driving a similar vehicle, which is

registered or insured, for the purpose of carrying passengers for hire

or reward, would require endorsement as to drive a “transport vehicle”

is not contemplated by the provisions of the Act. There are several

vehicles which can be used for private use as well as for carrying

passengers for hire or reward. It was also submitted that a driver who

is competent to drive a vehicle for private use, would be entitled to

drive the same vehicle if it is used for hire or reward or for even

carrying the goods in the said vehicle. It was also submitted that it

was intended by the Amendment Act 54/1994 to simplify the

procedure not to make it complicated and invalidate the licence of

light motor vehicle and its holder could drive transport vehicle of the

weight specified in section 2(21) of the Act.

36.It was further submitted that there is difference in ‘class of

vehicles’ and ‘type of vehicles’ and it is not necessary to obtain

endorsement to drive transport vehicle of Light Motor Vehicle

category when a person is competent to drive the same class of

Page 54 54

vehicle i.e. a light motor vehicle, as per the Amendment Act 54 of

1994 and Forms 4 and 6 as amended in 2001.

37.It was also submitted that when this Court has held in Annappa

Irappa Nesaria (supra) that prior to insertion of the Forms in 2001 the

holder of licence of “light motor vehicle” was competent to drive a

transport vehicle also. It was further submitted that no change has

been brought by insertion of the Forms in the provisions contained in

section 10(2)(d).

38.It was also submitted that Section 3 of the MV Act, 1988 from

the very beginning provided about the transport vehicle. However,

classes of vehicle classified in section 10(2) were light motor vehicle,

medium goods and passenger motor vehicle, and heavy goods and

passenger vehicle. The change brought about in 1994 was substitution

of transport vehicle in place of medium and heavy goods and

passenger vehicles and in view of the decisions of this Court in Ashok

Gangadhar (supra), Annappa Irappa Nesaria (supra) and Kulwant

Singh (supra), a person holding LMV licence was competent to drive

a transport vehicle. The provisions of “light motor vehicle” in section

10(2)(d) remains intact. It has not been amended. It was also

submitted that the Forms which have been amended would not govern

Page 55 55

the interpretation of the provisions of Act; whereas the intendment of

the Rule 8 inserted in 2007 was that type of vehicle could be added.

What is the effect and purpose of insertion of Rule 8 in 2007, has not

been taken into consideration. The Form has to be interpreted in tune

with provisions of the Act and Rules. The object of the Act and

Amendment Act 54/1994 has also not been taken into consideration in

any of the decisions, and the effect of different syllabus having been

prescribed for “light motor vehicle”, heavy and medium vehicles was

also not placed for consideration.

39.In Ashok Gangadhar Maratha in para 10 (supra), S.Iyyapan v.

United India Insurance Co. (supra), Kulwant Singh & Ors. v. Oriental

Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), and Nagashetty v. United India Insurance

Co. Ltd. & Ors. (supra), the view taken is that when driver is holding

licence to drive light motor vehicle, he is competent to drive transport

vehicle of that category; whereas in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v.

Prabhu Lal (supra) the view taken is that before 2001 also it was

necessary for a driver possessing licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle

to obtain endorsement to drive transport vehicle of that category;

whereas in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Annappa Irappa Nesaria

(supra), this Court laid down that before 28.3.2001 there was no

Page 56 56

necessity for holder of licence to drive light motor vehicle to have

endorsement to drive transport vehicle; whereas in New India

Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir & Anr. (supra)

and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Angad Kol & Ors. (supra), the view

taken is that it is necessary for holder of light motor vehicle licence to

obtain specific endorsement on licence, to drive transport vehicle of

the light motor vehicle weight as provided in section 2(41).

Thus, there appears to be a conflict in the decisions of this

Court with respect to the pre-amended position and also after

amendment has been effected in the Forms in 2001. In view of

aforesaid discussion, following questions are required to be referred to

larger Bench :

1What is the meaning to be given to the definition of “light

motor vehicle” as defined in section 2(21) of the MV Act ?

Whether transport vehicles are excluded from it ?

2Whether ‘transport vehicle’ and ‘omnibus’ the “gross vehicle

weight” of either of which does not exceed 7500 kgs. would

be a “light motor vehicle” and also motor-car or tractor or a

road roller, “unladen weight” of which does not exceed 7500

kgs. and holder of licence to drive class of “light motor

Page 57 57

vehicle” as provided in section 10(2)(d) would be competent

to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the “gross vehicle

weight” of which does not exceed 7500 kgs. or a motor-car

or tractor or road roller, the “unladen weight” of which does

not exceed 7500 kgs. ?

3What is the effect of the amendment made by virtue of Act

No.54 of 1994 w.e.f. 14.11.1994 while substituting clauses

(e) to (h) of section 10(2) which contained “medium goods

vehicle”, “medium passenger motor vehicle”, “heavy goods

vehicle” and “heavy passenger motor vehicle” by “transport

vehicle”? Whether insertion of expression ‘transport vehicle’

under section 10(2)(e) is related to said substituted classes

only or it also excluded transport vehicle of light motor

vehicle class from purview of Sections 10(2)(d) and 2(41) of

the Act?

4What is the effect of amendment of the Form 4 as to

operation of the provisions contained in section 10 as

amended in the year 1994 and whether procedure to obtain

driving licence for transport vehicle of class of “Light Motor

Vehicle” has been changed ?

Page 58 58

40.Let the matters be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of

India to constitute a larger Bench in order to resolve conflict in the

views expressed by different Benches of this Court.

………………………… J.

(Kurian Joseph)

New Delhi; ………………………..J.

February 11, 2016. (Arun Mishra)