M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi & Ors.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Hrishikesh Roy, J.

Title* Page No. A. Background …6 B. Submissions on behalf of Insurance Companies … 15 C. Submissions on behalf of Claimants … 22 D. Issues … 26 E. Discussion … 27 (i) The Purpose of MV Act (ii) Brief Overview of MV Act & MV Rules (iii) Construing Section 2(21), 3 & 10 of MV Act (iv) Whether the interpretation in Mukund Dewangan (2017) renders most provisions of the MV Act & MV Rules otiose? (a) Harmonious Construction (b) Interpretation must not lead to impractical outcomes (v) Discussion on the 8 Conflicting judgments (vi) Is Mukund Dewangan (2017) per incuriam? F. Impact on Road Safety … 114 G. Conclusion … 121

1Copy pinpoint1. On the perception of the capability of drivers on the road, the comedian George Carlin made the humorous observation to the effect that: ‘Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?’.1 Concerns about road safety are often shaped by individual biases without the opinion being founded on any empirical data. It is easy to overlook the full spectrum of factors that contribute to road safety. In this context,

p. 553 Copy page pinpoint

M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi & Ors.

the pivotal legal issue that this Constitution bench of five judges has to decide is whether under the existing legal framework of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act”) and the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short, “MV Rules”), a person holding a license for a ‘Light Motor Vehicle’ class, can drive a ‘Transport Vehicle’ without a specific endorsement, provided the ‘Gross Vehicle Weight’ of the vehicle does not exceed 7,500 kgs?. Besides road safety, the livelihood concern of a large number of drivers of transport vehicles in India also requires an answer from the bench. In this judgment, let us name our driver Sri, who is a ‘Transport Vehicle’ driver. As can be appreciated, Sri spends maximum hours behind the driving wheels and is arguably the most experienced one amongst Indian drivers, carrying goods and people, from destination to and so on. A. BACKGROUND

2Copy pinpoint2. Before we set out the relevant provisions, a brief overview of the legal journey that has led us to the above quest would be appropriate. The vexed question was first noticed by a 2-judge Bench of Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice Arun Mishra in Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.2 (for short “Mukund Dewangan(2016)”. It took note of the conflicting views in 8 different judgments of this Court and framed the following questions for determination by a 3-judge bench: “59.1. What 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? 59.2. Whether “transport vehicle” and “omnibus” the “gross vehicle weight” of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg would be a “light motor vehicle” and also motor car or tractor or a roadroller, “unladen weight” of which does not exceed 7500 kg and holder of licence to drive class of “light motor 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 kg or a motor car or tractor or roadroller, the “unladen weight” of which does not exceed 7500 kg?

p. 554 Copy page pinpoint

Digital Supreme Court Reports

59.3. What is the effect of the amendment made by virtue of Act 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 the expression “transport vehicle” under Section 10(2)(e) is related to the said substituted classes only or it also excluded transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class from the purview of Sections 10(2)(d) and 2(41) of the Act? 59.4. What is the effect of amendment of 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?”

3Copy pinpoint3. Speaking through Justice Arun Mishra, the reference was answered by a 3-Judge Bench of Justice Arun Mishra, Justice Amitava Roy, and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul in Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.3 (for short “Mukund Dewangan (2017)”). The Bench concluded that the holder of a license for a ‘Light Motor Vehicle’ class need not have a separate endorsement to drive a ‘transport vehicle’ if it falls under the ‘Light Motor Vehicle’ class i.e. below 7,500 kgs. The reference was answered as under: “60.1 ‘Light motor vehicle’ as defined in section 2(21) of the Act would include a transport vehicle as per the weight prescribed in section 2(21) read with section 2(15) and 2(48). Such transport vehicles are not excluded from the definition of the light motor vehicle by virtue of Amendment Act No.54/1994. 60.2. A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg. would be a light motor vehicle and also motor car or tractor or a road roller, ‘unladen weight’ of which does not exceed 7500 kg. and holder of a driving licence to drive class of “light motor vehicle” as provided in section 10(2)(d) is

p. 555 Copy page pinpoint

M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi & Ors.

competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg. or a motor car or tractor or road-roller, the “unladen weight” of which does not exceed 7500 kg. That is to say, no separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class as enumerated above. A licence issued under section 10(2) (d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54/1994 and 28.3.2001 in the form. 60.3. The effect of the amendment made by virtue of Act No.54/1994 w.e.f. 14.11.1994 while substituting clauses (e) to (h) of section 10(2) which contained “medium goods vehicle” in section 10(2)(e), medium passenger motor vehicle in section 10(2)(f), heavy goods vehicle in section 10(2)(g) and “heavy passenger motor vehicle” in section 10(2)(h) with expression ‘transport vehicle’ as substituted in section 10(2)(e) related only to the aforesaid substituted classes only. It does not exclude transport vehicle, from the purview of section 10(2)(d) and section 2(41) of the Act i.e. light motor vehicle. 60.4. The effect of amendment of Form 4 by insertion of “transport vehicle” is related only to the categories which were substituted in the year 1994 and the procedure to obtain driving licence for transport vehicle of class of “light motor vehicle” continues to be the same as it was and has not been changed and there is no requirement to obtain separate endorsement to drive transport vehicle, and if a driver is holding licence to drive light motor vehicle, he can drive transport vehicle of such class without any endorsement to that effect.” [emphasis supplied]

4Copy pinpoint4. However, the above pronouncement did not put the matter to rest. On 3.5.2018, a two-judge Bench comprising Justice Kurian Joseph & Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar in M/s. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi & Ors.4 noted that while deciding

p. 556 Copy page pinpoint

Digital Supreme Court Reports

the vexed question in Mukund Dewangan (2017), the 3 Judge-bench had not considered important provisions of the MV Act and MV Rules. The bench noted that the following significant provisions were not placed before the Court in Mukund Dewangan (2017): “3. It is the submission of Shri Jayant Bhushan and Shri Joy Basu, learned Senior Counsel that certain distinct provisions pertaining specifically to transport vehicles have unfortunately not been brought to the notice of the Court:

1. Section 4(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) provides that the minimum age of holding a driving licence for a motor vehicle is 18 years. Section 4(2) provides that no person under the age of 20 years shall drive a transport vehicle in a public place.

2. Section 7 provides that no person can be granted a learner’s licence to drive a transport vehicle unless he has held a driving licence to drive a light motor vehicle for at least one year.

3. Section 14 deals with the currency of licence to drive motor vehicles. A driving licence issued or renewed under this Act, in case a licence to drive a transport vehicle will be effective for a period of three years. The proviso to Section 14(2)(a) provides that in case of a licence to drive a transport vehicle carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous nature, it shall be effective for a period of one year. However, in case of any other licence, it would be effective for a period of 20 years.

4. Rule 5 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”) makes a medical certificate issued by a registered medical practitioner mandatory in case of a transport vehicle, whereas for a non-transport vehicle, only a self-declaration is sufficient.

5Copy pinpoint5. Rule 31, specifically sub-rules (2), (3) and (4) provide for a difference in the syllabus and duration of training between transport and non-transport vehicles. It is also submitted that in these provisions, there does not appear to be any exception carved out for transport vehicles which come in the light motor vehicle category.”

p. 557 Copy page pinpoint

M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi & Ors.

5. Being a two-judge bench, the Court deemed it appropriate to refer the prayer itself for reconsideration of the ratio in Mukund Dewangan (2017) to a larger bench of three judges. Subsequently, a three- Judge bench of Justice U.U. Lalit, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, and Justice P.S. Narasimha on 8.3.20225 noted that the referral order rightly observed that certain provisions of the MV Act and MV Rules were not noticed in Mukund Dewangan (2017). The 3-judge bench flagged certain additional provisions that were not noticed in Mukund Dewangan (2017). Since such a view was expressed by a Bench of equal strength, it was considered appropriate to refer the matter to a larger bench of five judges. The reference order reads as under: “5. Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Mr. Gopal Sankaranaryanan, Mr. Siddhartha Dave, learned Senior Advocates as well as Mr. Amit Singh, Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, Mr. Kaustubh Shukla, Ms. Meenakshi Midha and Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gupta, learned Advocates, appearing for Insurance Companies have invited our attention to few other provisions, namely, the second proviso to Section 15 and Sections 180 and 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 apart from those mentioned in the referral order. It is submitted that though Section 3 was quoted in the decision in Mukund Dewangan (supra), the latter part of Section 3 and the effect thereof was not noticed by the Court. The latter part of said Section 3 stipulates that “no person shall so drive a transport vehicle other than the motor cab or motor cycle hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under any scheme made under sub-section (2) of Section 75 unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do.”

6Copy pinpoint6. It is thus submitted that the provisions contemplate different regimes for those having licence to drive Light Motor Vehicles as against those licensed to drive Transport Vehicles.

7Copy pinpoint7. Having bestowed our attention to the contentions raised by the learned counsel and the issues which fall for consideration, in our view, the referral order was right

5 Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi (2023) 4 SCC 723

p. 558 Copy page pinpoint

Digital Supreme Court Reports

in stating that certain provisions were not noticed by this Court in its decision in Mukund Dewangan (supra). We are prima facie of the view that in terms of the referral order, the controversy in question needs to be re visited. Sitting in a combination of Three Judges, we deem it appropriate to refer the matters to a larger bench of more than Three Judges as the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India may deem appropriate to constitute”

6. For the benefit of the claimants, the reference order also pertinently notes that: “9. Before we part, we must note that all the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance companies have fairly submitted that the compensation in terms of the directions issued by the Courts below, that is to say, in following the principles laid down in Mukund Dewangan (supra) has either been paid in full or shall be paid in terms of such directions. Their statements are recorded.”

7. Thus, the correctness of Mukund Dewangan (2017) is to be evaluated during this reference. At this juncture, we may note that during the final stage of hearing before this Court on 20.7.2023, it was brought to our notice that the Union Government had accepted the decision in Mukund Dewangan (2017), by issuing notifications dated 16.4.2018 and 31.3.2021. The Rules were also amended to bring them in conformity with the said judgment. Considering such compliance, we sought the assistance of the learned Attorney General, Mr. R. Venkataramani and desired to elicit the specific stand of the Union Government on the issue. When the matter was next heard on 13.9.2023,6 the following order was passed by this 5-judge bench: “8. Mr. R Venkataramani, Attorney General for India, has appeared in response to the request of the Court and submitted a written note. The note submitted by the Attorney General indicates that: (i) Application of the ratio in Mukund Dewangan (supra) enables a person holding a licence for a light motor vehicle to drive a transport vehicle on the strength

6 Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi (2024) 1 SCC 818

p. 559 Copy page pinpoint

M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi & Ors.

of that licence without a separate transport vehicle licence; and (ii) This interpretation of the provisions of the statute and the Rules in Mukund Dewangan (supra) does not appear to be in accord with the legislative intent.

10. At the same time, it has been submitted that the Union of India is open to the need, if any, to issue guidelines/ regulations to address the perceived gaps in law as understood in the judgment of this Court in Mukund Dewangan (supra).

11. Apart from the specific submission of the Union Government during the course of hearing, that it is open to re-evaluate the position in law, we are of the considered view that it would be necessary for the Union Government to have a fresh look at the matter. We are inclined to take this view for the following reasons: (i) Since the enactment of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, there has been a rapid evolution of the transport sector, particularly in the last few years with the emergence of new infrastructure and new arrangements for putting into place private transport arrangements; (ii) Any interpretation or formulation of the law must duly take into account valid concerns of road safety bearing on the safety of users of public transport facilities;

p. 560 Copy page pinpoint

Digital Supreme Court Reports

(iii) Any change in the position of law as expressed in Mukund Dewangan (supra) would undoubtedly have an impact on persons who have obtained insurance relying on the law declared by this Court and who may be driving commercial vehicles with LMV licences. A large number of persons would be dependent on the sector for earning their livelihood; and (iv) The decision in Mukund Dewangan (supra) has held the field for nearly six years and the impact of the reversal of the decision, at this stage, particularly on the social sector, is a facet which would have to be placed in balance by the policy arm of the Government.

12. The considerations which have been flagged above do not necessarily weigh in the same direction. However, all of them do raise important issues of policy which must be assessed and evaluated by the Union Government. Whether a change in the law is warranted is a matter which has to be determined by the Union Government after taking a considered decision bearing in mind the diverse considerations which fall within its remit in making policy choices and decisions.

13. Having regard to these features, we are of the view that the issue of interpretation which has been referred to the Constitution Bench by the referral order dated 8 March 2022 should await a careful evaluation of the policy considerations which may weigh with the Government in deciding as to whether the reversal of the decision as it obtains in Mukund Dewangan (supra) is warranted and, if so, the way forward that must be adopted bearing in mind the diverging interests, some of which have been noted in the earlier part of the order.

14. Hence, in view of the consequences which may arise by the reversal of the judgment in Mukund Dewangan (supra), it would be appropriate if the entire matter is evaluated by the Government before this Court embarks upon the interpretative exercise. Once the Court is apprised of the considered view of the Union Government, the proceedings before the Constitution Bench can be taken up.

p. 561 Copy page pinpoint

M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi & Ors.

15. We request the Union Government to carry out this exercise within a period of two months.

16. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the referral order dated 8 March 2022 or on the correctness of the decision in Mukund Dewangan (supra) which would await further arguments once the considered view of the Union Government is placed before this Court.”

8Copy pinpoint8. In view of the consultative exercise being carried out by the government, the matter was deferred multiple times. On 16.4.2024, a note on the proposed set of amendments to the MV Act was submitted before this Court. On 21.8.2024, the learned Attorney General, R. Venkataramani had suggested that the matter be either deferred till the amendments are tabled before Parliament or the Court may conclude the pending hearing. We then proceeded to hear the part-heard matter on 21.8.2024. B. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF INSURANCE COMPANIES

9Copy pinpoint9. We have heard Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General; learned Senior Counsel Mr. Siddhartha Dave, Mr. Jayant Bhushan; Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, learned Senior Counsel; Mr. Amit Kumar Singh and Mr. Shivam Singh, Learned Counsel on behalf of the Insurance Companies. Mr. PB Suresh appeared as a supporting Intervenor for the ‘The Society against Drunk Driving’. 9.1. Mr. Siddhartha Dave, learned Senior Counsel took us through those provisions of the MV Act and MV Rules that create a distinction between ‘Light Motor Vehicles’ and ‘Transport Vehicles’. 9.2. The Counsel drew the Court’s attention to Section 3 of the MV Act which stipulates the ‘necessity for a driving license’ to drive a motor vehicle. He referred to the second part of the provision which states that ‘no person shall so drive a transport vehicle…unless his driving license specifically entitles him so to do.’ It was contended that Mukund Dewangan (2017) overlooked that there was a specific mention of ‘transport vehicle’ in Section 3 which would indicate that a license for a ‘light motor vehicle’ cannot be used for driving a ‘transport vehicle’.

p. 562 Copy page pinpoint

Digital Supreme Court Reports

9.3. Mr. Dave further argued that the eligibility for obtaining a license for transport vehicles is more stringent than for Light Motor Vehicles. Since transport vehicles are primarily utilized for carrying passengers and goods, the additional requirements are essential for ensuring road safety. Adverting to Section 4 of the MV Act, which sets out the age limit, the Counsel highlighted that the minimum age for securing a driving license for ‘motor vehicles’ is 18 years but for driving ‘transport vehicles’, Section 4(2) provides that the minimum age would be 20. Moreover, to qualify even for a learner’s license to drive a ‘transport vehicle’, Section 7(1) stipulates that a candidate must have held a driving license for a ‘Light Motor Vehicle’, for at least one year. 9.4. Section 8(3) mandates that an individual applying for a learner’s license for a transport vehicle, must submit a medical certificate from a registered medical practitioner, attesting to the applicant’s physical fitness to operate a transport vehicle. However, such a requirement is absent in the case of a Light Motor Vehicle for which only a self-declaration is sufficient. Additionally, the second proviso to Section 15 of MV Act stipulates that a medical certificate is also necessary for the renewal of a driving license for ‘transport vehicles’. Section 9(4) requires that the applicant for a ‘transport vehicle’ license must possess a driving certificate from a driving school or establishment. It was further submitted that the 1994 amendment to Section 10 merged four classes of (i) ‘medium goods vehicle’, (ii) ‘medium passenger vehicle’, (iii) ‘heavy goods vehicle’ and (iv) ‘heavy passenger vehicle’, into a single class of ‘transport vehicle’ under Section10(2)(e) of MV Act. Section 10(2)(d) on the other hand provides for a separate class of ‘Light Motor Vehicle’. Therefore, the retention of the separate classes of ‘transport vehicle’ and ‘light motor vehicle’ under Section 10(2) by the 1994 Amendment, implies that the two classes are not co-equals, and the license holder of a ‘Light Motor Vehicle’ is not eligible to drive a ‘Transport Vehicle’. A separate license would be mandatory is the argument of the counsel. 9.5. Mr. Jayant Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel argued that Mukund Dewangan (2017) erred in two significant respects. The judgment overlooked Section 3, which mandates a separate

p. 563 Copy page pinpoint

M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi & Ors.

endorsement for driving a ‘transport vehicle’. Reliance was placed on the decision in Nathi Devi v. Radha Devi Gupta,7 where it was held that ‘effort should be made to give effect to each and every word used by the Legislature.’ Therefore, it was projected that the Court should not disregard any part of Section 3 in its interpretation. 9.6. The other reason why Mukund Dewangan (2017) was incorrect according to Mr. Bhushan, was because it focused on the general law, rather than the special provisions within the MV Act. It was therefore argued that it is a well-known principle that the general will not override the special (Generalia Specialibus Non Derogant) and the special will override the general (Specialia Generalibus Derogant). It was pointed out that Section 10(2) explicitly distinguishes between ‘Transport Vehicles’ and LMV, treating them as separate categories. Mukund Dewangan (2017) erroneously subsumed ‘transport vehicles’ under the broader category of ‘Light Motor Vehicles’. It was also contended that the requirements for obtaining a transport vehicle license are distinct and more rigorous because the drivers of transport vehicles are entrusted with the safety of passengers including school children and strangers, who repose their trust in the driver of the transport vehicle. 9.7. In his turn, Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, learned Senior Counsel emphasized that the classification of transport vehicles under 7500 kg within the definition of Light Motor Vehicles under Section 2(21) is a broad definition, based on weight. He contended that this classification does not imply that the licensing regime under the MV Act is also determined by weight. According to the Counsel, licensing under the MV Act is linked to the intended ‘use’ of the vehicle. Specific attention was drawn to the definition of a Transport Vehicle in Section 2(47), which refers to a ‘public service vehicle’, a ‘goods carriage’, an ‘educational institution bus’ or a ‘private service vehicle’. Mr. Kaul argued that in the separate definition for each of these categories, one common factor is discernible as each provision uses words like ‘use’, ‘used or adapted to

7 [2004] Supp. 6 SCR 1141 : (2005) 2 SCC 271

p. 564 Copy page pinpoint

Digital Supreme Court Reports

be used’, ‘constructed or adapted for use’. This shows that the licensing scheme is based on usage and not the weight of the vehicle. 9.8. Mr. Tushar Mehta, Learned Solicitor General submitted that the definition under Section 2(21) which includes transport vehicles is for a different regime, set under Section 113 and 115 of MV Act. These sections are contained in Chapter VII which is titled ‘Control of Traffic’ and pertain to ‘limits of weight and limitations on use’ and ‘power to restrict the use of vehicles’. In this context, vehicles of specific weight may be prohibited from certain roads or areas thereby, making weight a relevant factor. Under the said definition of LMV, ‘weight’ has been kept as a factor for demarcation between ‘LMV’ and ‘Transport’ vehicles only for the purposes of determining the ‘road tax’. Rule 31(2) and Rule 31(3) of the Rules prescribe the syllabus for training drivers for ‘Non-Transport’ and ‘Transport’ vehicles respectively. It was submitted that the said syllabuses are not the same. Also, the MV Act provides that the minimum period of training shall not be less than 21 days for ‘Non-Transport’ vehicles, as opposed to ‘Transport’ vehicles, for which the minimum period of training shall not be less than 30 days. 9.9. In her turn, Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, learned Senior Counsel presented to the Bench a photograph of a bus weighing 7450 kg, just below the limit of 7500 kg. She argued that if a school bus is operated by someone holding a Light Motor Vehicle license, it could be very risky. It was asserted that weight should not be a determining factor for licensing, rather it may be relevant in contexts such as taxes, permits, and other regulatory considerations. Ms. Dave pointed out that Mukund Dewangan (2017) failed to acknowledge the necessity of a Form 7 endorsement for LMV license holders to drive transport vehicles. This endorsement is crucial, as LMV license holders cannot legally drive transport vehicles without it. Furthermore, Section 9(6) requires competence testing, specific to the type of vehicle, necessitating separate licenses for LMV and Transport Vehicles to maintain the MV Act’s regulatory coherence. 9.10. Mr. P.B. Suresh, learned Counsel representing the Intervenor- The Society Against Drunken Driving, an NGO argued that road

p. 565 Copy page pinpoint

M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi & Ors.

safety is considered a fundamental right. He argued that the decision in Mukund Dewangan (2017) has led to unsafe roads by permitting untrained drivers to operate transport vehicles. It was submitted that Section 7 of the MV Act requires an individual to hold a driver’s license for at least one year to obtain a learner’s license for a transport vehicle, which is a critical safety measure. 9.11. Mr. Shivam Singh, learned Counsel argued that motor vehicle insurance policies had ensured adequate risk coverage only when accidents were caused by vehicles for which, drivers had valid licenses. However, in Mukund Dewangan (2017), this court referred to the weight of the vehicle, rather than vehicle usage, as a relevant marker for statutory purposes. Consequently, insurance coverage through judicial decisions had to be extended to cases where drivers with LMV licenses were driving vehicles outside their licensing permits. C. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF CLAIMANTS

10Copy pinpoint10. On behalf of the Claimants, we have heard learned Senior Counsel, Ms. Anitha Shenoy, and the respective submissions of Mr. Devvrat, Mr. Kaustubh Shukla and Mr. Anuj Bhandari learned Counsel. While supporting the interpretation in Mukund Dewangan (2017) the Counsel would contend that the vehicles under the MV Act are differentiated according to their weight. They argue that the definition of ‘light motor vehicle’ in Section 2(21) is an inclusive definition which encompasses multiple variety of vehicles including transport vehicles, the weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg. 10.1. The learned Counsel, Mr. Devvrat contended that the licensing system under the MV Act, categorises motor vehicles into two primary groups i.e. Light and Heavy categories—LMV and HMV respectively. It was argued that if a motorcycle used for hire, weighing less than 200kg falls under the class of transport vehicles, countless drivers operating on platforms like Rapido, a bike-or-hire service, would be required to obtain fresh licenses if Mukund Dewangan (2017) is overruled. 10.2. Mr. Anuj Bhandari, learned Counsel arguing for the Claimants, took us through the history of the inclusion of “transport vehicles” as a class, under the MV Act. It was submitted that for the last

p. 566 Copy page pinpoint

Digital Supreme Court Reports

34 years, licenses have been granted in the country on the basis of weight of the vehicle. Even today, Form 2 specifies the grant of licenses based on weight, with exceptions being made for vehicles like road rollers, e-rickshaws, or a motorcycle. He pointed out that the original legislation identified four types of vehicles: (i) medium goods vehicles, (ii) medium passenger vehicles, (iii) heavy goods vehicles and (iv) heavy passenger vehicles. With the 1994 amendments to the MV Act, these categories were clubbed into a single classification of “transport vehicles.” Building on this, Mr. Bhandari contended that “transport vehicles” under the MV Act meant medium and heavy vehicles. Therefore, individuals with an LMV license were entitled to drive a light transport vehicle weighing less than 7500 kilograms. Whereas, additional requirements of a medical certificate and experience would apply only to those medium and heavy transport vehicles which exceed the weight limit of 7,500 kgs. It was argued that the Parliament changed the nomenclature by merging the four categories into a single class of ‘Transport Vehicles’, to ‘simplify’ the licensing scheme. 10.3. Mr. Kaustubh Shukla, Learned Counsel projected that careful reading of all the definitions in Section 2 would make it clear that the definitions were primarily bifurcated as follows: “a. ‘Class of vehicle,’ which mandatorily referred to weight: LMV [Sec. 2(21)] up to 7500 KG, HMV (Passenger/Goods) [Sec. 2(16) & Sec. 2(17)] exceeding 12000 KG, MMV (Passenger/ Goods) [Sec. 2(23) & Sec. 2(24)] between 7500 to 12000 KG. b. ‘Kind or Name’ (Description) of vehicle, which had no reference to weight: [Sec. 2(7), 2(11), 2(14), 2(22), 2(25), 2(27), 2(28), 2(29), 2(33), 2(39), 2(40), 2(43), 2(44), 2(46), 2(47)].” The legislature, according to the counsel, intended to demarcate vehicles depending upon the weight of the vehicle and not their description. Thus, according to him, the entire licensing scheme must take into account the weight classification, to ensure clarity. The earlier unamended act set the weight limit at 6000 kg which was further raised to 7500 kg by way of the 1994 amendment. Therefore,

p. 567 Copy page pinpoint

M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi & Ors.

the legislature intended to demarcate vehicles depending on the weight and not the description of vehicle. It was further argued that in the event of a conflict between the Act and the Rules, Schedules, or Forms, the provisions of the Act will take precedence. Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in Aphali Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra.8 10.4. Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Learned Senior Counsel additionally argued that on the strength of Mukund Dewangan (2017), the auto drivers were permitted to operate taxis and motorcabs while holding a driving licence for LMV for the past 6 years. Reconsideration of the same is not merely an issue of insurance coverage, rather it would directly impact the livelihood of those driving transport vehicles with an LMV license. Their rights under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India should also be factored in for the interpretative exercise. D. ISSUES

11Copy pinpoint11. From the above submissions, the following specific issues fall for our consideration: (i) Whether a driver holding an LMV license (for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight of less than 7,500 kgs) as per Section 10(2)(d), which specifies ‘Light Motor Vehicle’, can operate a ‘Transport Vehicle’ without obtaining specific authorization under Section 10(2)(e) of the MV Act, specifically for the ‘Transport Vehicle’ class; (ii) Whether the second part of Section 3(1) which emphasizes the necessity of a driving license for a ‘Transport Vehicle’ overrides the definition of LMV in Section 2(21) of MV Act? Is the definition of LMV contained in Section 2(21) of MV Act unrelated to the licensing framework under the MV Act and the MV Rules; (iii) Whether the additional eligibility criteria prescribed in the MV Act and MV Rules for ‘transport vehicles’ would apply to those who are desirous of driving vehicles weighing below 7,500 kgs and have obtained a license for LMV class under Section 10(2)(d) of the MV Act ;

p. 568 Copy page pinpoint

Digital Supreme Court Reports

(iv) What is the effect of the amendment made by virtue of Act 54 of 1994 w.e.f. 14.11.1994 which substituted four classes under clauses (e) to (h) in Section 10 with a single class of ‘Transport Vehicle’ in Section 10(2)(e)? (v) Whether the decision in Mukund Dewangan (2017) is per incuriam for not noticing certain provisions of the MV Act and MV Rules? E. DISCUSSION (I) The Purpose of the MV Act, 1988

12Copy pinpoint12. Prior to the enactment of the MV Act 1988, the legal framework governing motor vehicles was based on the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939 which was incorporated from the English Road Traffic Act, 1930. In January 1984, a working group was constituted to review all provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939 and to propose necessary amendments. This culminated in the enactment of the MV Act, 1988 which has since undergone several amendments. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the MV Act, 1988 is extracted below for ready reference: “2. Various Committees, like, National Transport Policy Committee, National Police Commission, Road Safety Committee, Low Powered Two - Wheelers Committee, as also the Law Commission have gone into different aspects of road transport. They have recommended updating, simplification and rationalization of this law. Several Members of Parliament have also urged for comprehensive review of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, to make it relevant to the modern - day requirements.

3. A Working Group was, therefore, constituted in January, 1984 to review all the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and to submit draft proposals for a comprehensive legislation to replace the existing Act. This Working Group took into account the suggestions and recommendations earlier made by various bodies and institutions like Central Institute of Road Transport (CIRT), Automotive Research Association of India (ARAI), and other transport organisations including, the manufacturers and the general public, Besides, obtaining comments of State Governments on the recommendations of the Working Group, these were discussed in a specially convened meeting of Transport

p. 569 Copy page pinpoint

M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi & Ors.

Ministers of all States and Union territories. Some of the more important modifications so suggested related for taking care of – (a) the fast increasing number of both commercial vehicles and personal vehicles in the country ; (b) the need for encouraging adoption of higher technology in automotive sector; (c) the greater flow of passenger and freight with the least impediments so that islands of isolation are not created leading to regional or local imbalances; (d) concern for road safety standards, and pollution- control measures, standards for transportation of hazardous and explosive materials; (e) simplification of procedure and policy liberalization for private sector operations in the road transport field ; and (f) need for effective ways of tracking down traffic offenders.”

13Copy pinpoint13. As per the Statement of Objects and Reasons, the important provisions addressed the following: "(a) rationalization of certain definitions with additions of certain new definitions of new types of vehicles; (b) stricter procedures relating to grant of driving licences and the period of validity thereof; (c) laying down of standards for the components and parts of motor vehicles; (d) standards for anti-pollution control devices; (e) provision for issuing fitness certificates of vehicles also by the authorised testing stations; (f) enabling provision for updating the system of registration marks; (g) liberalised schemes for grant of stage carriage permits on non nationalised routes, all-India Tourist permits and also national permits for goods carriages;

p. 570 Copy page pinpoint

Digital Supreme Court Reports

(h) administration of the Solatium Scheme by the General Insurance Corporation; (i) provision for enhanced compensation in cases of “no fault liability” and in hit and run motor accidents; (j) provision for payment of compensation by the insurer to the extent of actual liability to the victims of motor accidents irrespective of the class of vehicles; (k) maintenance of State registers for driving licences and vehicle registration; (l) constitution of Road Safety Councils.

6. The Bill also seeks to provide for more deterrent punishment in the cases of certain offences.”

14Copy pinpoint14. The above would suggest that the enactment of the MV Act, 1988 was driven, inter alia, by the rapidly increasing number of vehicles in the country, the development of the road sector and the need to promote the adoption of advanced technology in the automotive sector. It is also essential to note that the Law Commission, in particular, had made various recommendations concerning provisions of the MV Act, 1939 and MV Act, 1988 in its Report Nos. 85,9 106,10 11911 and 149.12 To further understand the objective of the MV Act, 1988, we may refer to the 149th Report of the Law Commission titled ‘Removing Certain Deficiencies in the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988’ which noted the challenges faced by victims and their families in seeking compensation under the MV Act, 1988 and the rising frequency of road accidents in the following words:- “ The frequency of accidents caused by motor vehicles and the pitiable plight of the victims of such accidents and dependants have been the subject matter of comment by

p. 571 Copy page pinpoint

M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi & Ors.

the Supreme Court in a number of cases. During recent years, the number of road accidents in the country have increased more alarmingly. Almost every day one finds in the newspapers, sad tales of road accidents. …. There is therefore an urgent need for streamlining the mechanism through which the victims or their legal representatives are compensated for their loss in such accidents so that they may be able to receive expeditiously an appropriate amount as compensation for the damages sustained by them. It is felt all round that victims of motor accidents and their legal representatives, where the accident is fatal, besides having grievously suffered as a result of the unfortunate event, are subjected to the agonies and uncertainties of a legal battle for a number of years for receiving the damages due to them through the process of Court. Of late, Lok Adalats have been settling the cases of such nature but it has been found that the victims or their legal representatives are compelled to be satisfied with a paltry sum out of the damages claimed by them. Such persons have no other option but to settle the dispute because they do not know for how many more years they will have to litigate for receiving the damages. In the backdrop of these and other related matters, the law commission has suo moto taken up the exercise of finding a solution to some of the problems relating to the Motor Vehicle Act and giving their appropriate recommendations thereon.”

15Copy pinpoint15. The MV Act, 1988 is fundamentally a social welfare legislation13 enacted with the objective of providing a mechanism for victims and their families to seek compensation for loss or injury resulting from road accidents. Additionally, its provisions regarding licensing and penalties for traffic violations serve the broader purpose of promoting road safety. Being a welfare legislation, it must be interpreted in a manner so as not to deprive the claimants of the benefit of the legislation. Any interpretation of its provisions must reflect the dual purpose, of not only as a mechanism for ensuring timely compensation and relief for victims of road accidents but also in promoting overall road safety.

13 Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kokilaben Chandravadan, AIR 1987 SC 1184; Sohan Lal Passi v. Sesh Reddy, AIR 1996 SC 2627

p. 572 Copy page pinpoint

Digital Supreme Court Reports

16Copy pinpoint16. The issue in this reference is whether an individual holding an LMV license can legally drive a transport vehicle if it falls within the stipulated weight limit of 7,500 kgs. The genesis of the issue stems from disputes regarding the payment of claims by insurance companies for accidents involving ‘transport vehicles’ operated by individuals holding licenses to drive ‘light motor vehicles’. The question before this Court is not one of statutory interpretation but also involves concerns of road safety and public welfare. In interpreting any statute, it is always prudent to keep an eye on the object and purpose of the statute, as well as the underlying reason and the spirit behind it. However, we are conscious of not overstepping into the policy domain which is essentially the prerogative of the legislature. The legislature is uniquely positioned to examine the broader social, economic and safety considerations that underlie transportation policy and any changes to the law must be rooted in comprehensive public discourse and analysis. Having noted the broader objective of the MV Act, let us now discuss the statutory scheme. (II) Brief Overview of the MV Act and MV Rules

17Copy pinpoint17. It is a fundamental principle of statutory interpretation that ‘construction is to be made of all the parts together and not of one part only by itself’.14 When attempting to discern the meaning of a certain provision in a statute, it is essential to consider that provision within the broader context of the entire legislative framework. The context encompasses several other critical dimensions. First, it involves reading the statute as a whole. Second, it is also crucial to take into account any previous statutes that are in pari materia. Third, a comprehensive understanding of the general scope and purpose of the statute is essential. Finally, a critical aspect of interpreting any statutory provision also involves identifying the mischief that the legislation intended to address.15 Therefore, a nuanced and thorough interpretation would lend clarity and consistency in the application of legal principles.

18Copy pinpoint18. In this regard, Justice GP Singh in his seminal treatise on Interpretation of Statutes16 had this to say:

14 Subba Rao J in Gurmej Singh S v. Sardar Pratap Singh Kairon, AIR 1960 SC 122 15 R S Raghunath v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1992 SC 81; Union of India v. Elphinstone Spg. and Wvg. Co. Ltd. (2001) 4 SCC 139; Powdrill v. Watson (1995) 2 AC 394 16 Justice G.P. Singh: Principles of Statutory Interpretation (LexisNexis, 2016)

p. 573 Copy page pinpoint

M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi & Ors.

“It is a rule now firmly established- that the intention of the Legislature must be found by reading the statute as a whole. The rule is referred to as an “elementary rule” by Viscount Simonds; a “compelling rule” by Lord Somervell of Harrow; . and a “settled rule” by BK Mukherjee. “I agree”, said Lord Halsbury, “that you must look at the whole instrument inasmuch as there may be inaccuracy and inconsistency; you must, if you can, ascertain what is the meaning of the instrument taken as a whole in order to give effect, if it be possible to do so, to the intention of the framer of it”.”

19Copy pinpoint19. Let us now start by noting and understanding the statutory framework of the MV Act and the MV Rules. A snapshot of all the chapters of MV Act is listed below: Chapter I-Definitions Chapter II-Licensing of drivers of motor vehicles Chapter III-Licensing of Conductors of Stage Carriages. Chapter IV-Registration of motor vehicles. Chapter V-Control of Transport Vehicles Chapter VI-Special provisions relating to State Transport Undertakings Chapter VII-Construction, Equipment and Maintenance of motor vehicles. Chapter VIII-Control of Traffic Chapter IX-Motor Vehicles temporarily leaving or visiting India Chapter XI- Insurance of Motor Vehicles against third party risks Chapter XII-Claims Tribunals Chapter XIII-Offences, Penalties and Procedure Chapter XIV-Miscellaneous

20Copy pinpoint20. The MV Rules contain the following chapters: Chapter I-Preliminary Chapter II-Licensing of Drivers of Motor Vehicles Chapter III-Registration of Motor Vehicles Chapter IV-Control of Transport Vehicles

p. 574 Copy page pinpoint

Digital Supreme Court Reports

Chapter V-Construction, Equipment and Maintenance of Motor Vehicles Chapter VI-Control of Traffic Chapter VII-Insurance of Motor Vehicles Against Third Party Risks Chapter VIII-Offences, Penalties and Procedure Chapter IX-Examination of Good Samaritan and Enquiry

21Copy pinpoint21. This court, to effectively address the issue, is primarily concerned with Chapter II of the MV Act and the MV Rules which relates to licensing of drivers of motor vehicles. The Forms concerning driving license appended to the MV Rules, may also bear a reference. Chapter II of the MV Act contains the provisions dealing with the necessity for a driving license, age limit, responsibility of owners of motor vehicles, restrictions on the holding of driving licenses and the restrictions on the grant of learner’s licenses for certain vehicles. Section 8 and Section 9 contain provisions concerning the application for grant of a learner’s license and driving license respectively. Section 10 which is important for our purpose deals with ‘forms and contents of licenses to drive’. Chapter II also contains provisions for additions to the driving license, the licensing and regulation of schools or establishments for imparting instruction in driving of motor vehicles, the validity period of license, renewal, and revocation. Additionally, it also contains provisions concerning orders refusing or revoking driving licenses, driving licenses to drive motor vehicles belonging to Central Government, power of licensing authority to disqualify from holding a driving license or revoke such license, the power of Court to disqualify, suspend driving license in certain cases, the effect of the disqualification order, endorsement, and the maintenance of National and State Registers of Driving licenses. Finally, it also contains provisions relating to the power of Central and State Government to make Rules.

22Copy pinpoint22. The MV Rules contain the procedure concerning driving licenses in Chapter II. It covers, inter alia, general provisions, evidence as to the correctness of address and age, medical certificate, educational qualifications, preliminary test, application for a driving license, driving test, form of driving license, renewal, driving schools and establishments, duration of license, duplicate license as well as the training syllabus.

23Copy pinpoint23. The MV Act and MV Rules work in tandem, like two wheels in the same axle, to form a comprehensive legal framework governing

p. 575 Copy page pinpoint

M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi & Ors.

motor vehicles in India. While the Act provides the backbone, the Rules provide specific provisions for implementation. (III) Construing Section 2(21), Section 3 and Section 10

24Copy pinpoint24. To understand the divergent interpretations on the core issue of whether a holder of a LMV license can operate a ‘transport vehicle’ weighing less than 7,500 kgs, it will be necessary to first consider the relevant definition(s) contained in Section 2 of the MV Act. The definitions deserving scrutiny are noted below for ready reference. The definition of Section 2 interestingly begins with the clarificatory preface, ‘unless the context otherwise requires’:

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.” 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;” 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;” 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;” 2(21) “light motor vehicle” means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motorcar or tractor or road-roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed 7,500 kilograms;” 2(22) “maxicab” means any motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry more than six passengers, but not more than twelve passengers, excluding the driver, for hire or reward; 2(23) “medium goods vehicle” means any goods carriage other than a light motor vehicle or a heavy goods vehicle;”

p. 576 Copy page pinpoint

Digital Supreme Court Reports

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;” 2(25) “motorcab” means any motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry not more than six passengers excluding the driver for hire or reward. 2(26) “motor-car” means any motor vehicle other than a transport vehicle, omnibus, road-roller, tractor, motor-cycle or invalid carriage. 2(27) “motor cycle” means a two-wheeled motor vehicle, inclusive of any detachable side-car having an extra wheel, attached to the motor vehicle. 2(28) “motor vehicle” or “vehicle” means any mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads whether the power of propulsion is transmitted thereto from an external or internal source and includes a chassis to which a body has not been attached and a trailer; but does not include a vehicle running upon fixed rails or a vehicle of a special type adapted for use only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises or a vehicle having less than four wheels fitted with engine capacity of not exceeding1 [twenty-five cubic centimetres]; 2(29) “omnibus” means any motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry more than six persons excluding the driver.” 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;” 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;”

25Copy pinpoint25. The term ‘Transport Vehicle’ is defined in Section 2(47) of the MV Act and each of the terms contained in the definition is separately defined in Sections 2(35),2(14), 2(11), 2(33) of the MV Act:

p. 577 Copy page pinpoint

M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi & Ors.

2(47) “transport vehicle” means a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle;” [emphasis supplied] 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 hire or reward but does not include a motor vehicle used for public purposes

26Copy pinpoint26. Rule 2 of the MV Rules provides certain additional definitions. For instance, Rule 2(c) defines an ‘agricultural tractor’ as under: “agricultural tractor” means any mechanically propelled 4-wheel vehicle designed to work with suitable implements for various field operations and/or trailers to transport agricultural materials. Agricultural tractor is a non-transport vehicle’ [emphasis supplied]

27Copy pinpoint27. Significantly, a non-transport vehicle is defined in Rule 2(h): ““non-transport vehicle” means a motor vehicle which is not a transport vehicle”

p. 578 Copy page pinpoint

Digital Supreme Court Reports

28Copy pinpoint28. The definition of ‘e-cart’,17 ‘e-rickshaw’,18 ‘Battery operated vehicle’,19 ‘road ambulance’,20 ‘school bus’,21 ‘special purpose vehicle’,22 ‘motor caravan’,23 ‘puller tractor’24 and different categories of vehicles such as ‘Category L’25 and ‘Category M’26 are also provided in the MV Rules.

29Copy pinpoint29. The above definition(s) in the MV Act and MV Rules would indicate that they focus on various aspects including reference by (i) weight such as light motor vehicle and heavy goods vehicle; (ii) the intended use such as educational institution bus, public service or private service and also (iii) the vehicle types such as omnibuses and motor cars. Therefore, the scheme of the Act is not exactly either user-based or weight-based but is a combination of both. It also takes into account the evolving transportation sector which is reflected in the introduction of new categories of vehicles through various amendments such as adapted vehicles, e-carts, and e-rickshaws. Notably, the Supreme Court has also recognized27 that hybrid rickshaws, commonly referred to as ‘jugaad’ in India, fall under the definition of Motor Vehicle u/s 2(28) of the MV Act.

30Copy pinpoint30. For our discussion, much turns on the definition of LMV contained in Section 2(21) of the MV Act: “light motor vehicle” means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motorcar or tractor or road-roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed 7,500 kilograms.” [emphasis supplied]

31Copy pinpoint31. The term ‘transport vehicle’, ‘gross vehicle weight’, ‘motor car’, ‘tractor’, ‘road roller’, ‘unladen weight’ and ‘gross vehicle weight’ are also separately defined in the MV Act as noted earlier. In the

17 Rule 2(cc) 18 Rule 2(cb) 19 Rule 2(u) 20 Rule 2(zb) 21 Rule 2(zc) 22 Rule 2(zd) 23 Rule 2(za) 24 Rule 2(y) 25 Rule 2(i) 26 Rule 2(k) 27 Rajasthan SRTC v. Santosh (2013) 7 SCC 107

p. 579 Copy page pinpoint

M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi & Ors.

context, Mr. Dave, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for one of the insurance companies presented to us a visual 1 page representation of the definition of LMV which being useful, is reproduced below:

p. 580 Copy page pinpoint

Digital Supreme Court Reports

32Copy pinpoint32. A plain reading of the definition clause of LMV as is also clear from the diagram above shows that LMV, inter-alia, ‘means’ a ‘Transport Vehicle’. The use of the word ‘means’ is crucial here which suggests specifics. When the statute says that a word or a phrase shall “mean” (instead of say “include”), it is quite certainly a ‘hard and fast’, strict and exhaustive definition. Such a definition is an explicit statement of the full connotation of a term.28 It is a clear signal that the legislature did not wish to maintain a distinction between the two classes of vehicles. Such an explicit and specific definition leaves no room for ambiguity.

33Copy pinpoint33. On the importance of definition sections, G.P. Singh in Interpretation of Statutes29 has the following to say:- “In spite of severe criticism as to utility of definitions section or interpretation clauses, it is common to find in a statute “Definitions” of certain words and expressions used elsewhere in the body of the statute. The object of such a definition is to avoid the necessity of frequent repetitions in describing all the subject matter to which the word or expression so defined is intended to apply. For instance, the Supreme Court held that when the word “securities” has been defined under the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956, its meaning would not vary when the same word is used at more than one place in the same statute, as otherwise it will defeat the very object of the definitive section.” [emphasis supplied]

34Copy pinpoint34. As noticed earlier, Section 2 also begins with the phrase ‘unless the context otherwise requires’. However, any contention based on a contrary context must avoid the risk of making the explicit definition, redundant or useless. Here we may usefully extract the following :-

28 Gough v. Gough [(1891) 2 QB 665 : 65 LT 110] referred in P. Kasilingam v. PSG College of Technology, AIR 1995 SC 1395; See also Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corpn Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court (1990) 3 SCC 682 29 Justice G.P. Singh: Principles of Statutory Interpretation (LexisNexis,2016)

p. 581 Copy page pinpoint

M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi & Ors.

“..However, it is incumbent on those who contend that the definition given in the interpretation clause does not apply to a particular section to show that the context in fact so requires. An argument based on contrary context which will make the inclusive definition inapplicable to any provision in the Act cannot be accepted as it would make the definition entirely useless. Repugnancy of a definition arises only when the definition does not agree with the subject or context; any action not in conformity with the definition will not obviously make it repugnant to subject or context of the provision containing the term defined under which such action is purported to have been taken. When the application of the definition to a term in a provision containing that term makes it unworkable and otiose, it can be said that the definition is not applicable to that provision because of contrary context.”30 [emphasis supplied]

35Copy pinpoint35. Considering the emphatic nature of the definition given in Section 2(21) which would suggest a strict interpretation, it would be logical to conclude that a light motor vehicle would mean a transport vehicle, omnibus, road roller, tractor, or motor car, provided the weight does not exceed 7,500 kgs. The definition as understood, has an important bearing on the issuance of licenses and permits.

36Copy pinpoint36. The term “driving license”, which is relevant for the present discussion, is defined under Section 2(10) of the MV Act as a license authorizing a person to operate a motor vehicle of “any specified class or description”. Let us now read Section 10(2) titled, ‘form and Contents of Licenses to drive’ which lists the different classes of motor vehicles. It is contained in Chapter II which deals with ‘Licensing of Drivers of Motor Vehicles’. A key amendment was carried out in the Section by deleting clauses (e), (f), (g) and (h) and all these were clubbed under a single head of “transport vehicle”.

30 Justice G.P. Singh, Principles of Statutory Interpretation (LexisNexis,2016)

p. 582 Copy page pinpoint

Digital Supreme Court Reports

MV Act (pre amendment of MV Act (post amendment of 14.11.1994) 14.11.1994)

10. Form and contents of 10. Form and contents of licences licences to drive.—(1) Every to drive.—(1) Every learner’s learner’s licence and driving licence and driving licence, except licence, except a driving licence a driving licence issued under issued under section 18, shall section 18, shall be in such be in such form and shall form and shall contain such contain such information as may information as may be prescribed be prescribed by the Central by the Central Government. (2) A Government. learner’s licence or, as the case may be, driving licence shall also (2) A learner’s licence or, as the be expressed as entitling the case may be, driving licence holder to drive a motor vehicle shall also be expressed as of one or more of the following entitling the holder to drive a classes, namely:— motor vehicle of one or more of the following classes, (a) motor cycle without gear; namely:— (a) motor cycle (b) motor cycle with gear; without gear; (b) motor cycle with gear; (c) invalid carriage1 ; (c) invalid carriage; (d) light motor vehicle; (d) light motor vehicle; (e) transport vehicle; (e) medium goods vehicle (e) deleted (f)medium passenger vehicle; (f) deleted (g)heavy goods vehicle; (g) deleted (h) heavy passenger vehicle. (h) deleted (i) road-roller; (j)motor vehicle of a specified description

37Copy pinpoint37. In the context of the deletion of the classes of ‘medium goods vehicle’, ‘medium passenger vehicle’, ‘heavy goods vehicle’, and ‘heavy passenger vehicle’ and the introduction of a separate class of ‘transport vehicle’ through the 1994 amendment, the counsel for the insurance companies contended that a specific mention of

p. 583 Copy page pinpoint

M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi & Ors.

‘transport vehicle’ after the amendment would suggest that a separate endorsement would be necessary to drive a ‘transport vehicle’. It was further submitted that even before the 1994 amendment, the second part of Section 3 always provided that a separate endorsement would be necessary.

38Copy pinpoint38. Section 3 is titled ‘Necessity for driving license’ and reads as under: “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.” [emphasis supplied]

39Copy pinpoint39. To deal with the above submission, let us take the hypothetical example of Sri - who let us say is desirous of driving an auto in the year 1990. The following option(s) of classes of vehicles would be available to Sri, as per unamended Section 10: (a) motor cycle without gear; (b) motor cycle with gear; (c) invalid carriage; (d) light motor vehicle; (e) medium goods vehicle (f) medium passenger vehicle; (g) heavy goods vehicle; (h) heavy passenger vehicle.

40Copy pinpoint40. The applicant Sri would be required to fill the Form 4, prescribed under Rule 14 of MV Rules which was prevalent before 28.3.2001. The Form 4 is extracted below:-

p. 584 Copy page pinpoint

Digital Supreme Court Reports

“FORM 4 [See Rule 14] Form of application for licence to drive a motor vehicle To, The licensing authority, …………………………………. [Passport size photograph]

I apply for a licence to enable me to drive vehicles of the following description— (a) Motorcycle without gear (b) Motorcycle 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) Roadroller (j) Motor vehicle of the following description: *** 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.”

p. 585 Copy page pinpoint

M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi & Ors.

41Copy pinpoint41. Form 4 above indicates that there is no mention of ‘Transport Vehicle’ for the purpose of obtaining a driving license. Moreover, there is no mention of a ‘light goods vehicle’ or a ‘light passenger vehicle’. Therefore, if Sri applies for a ‘Light Motor Vehicle’ license, which already means a ‘Transport Vehicle’ as per the definition of LMV contained in 2(21), can it be said that Sri cannot drive a ‘Transport Vehicle’ because ‘his driving license specifically’ does not ‘entitle him so to do’ as provided in the second part of Section 3? We think not. The specific authorization should not be understood to mean that Sri holding an LMV license which covers ‘Transport vehicle’, would be disentitled to drive a ‘Transport Vehicle’. A question would then arise about the purpose of explicitly mentioning ‘Transport Vehicle’ in Section 3 (and other provisions as we will discuss later)? We may notice that there is no mention of the term ‘light goods vehicle’ or a ‘light passenger vehicle’ in Section 10 or in the definition section. On the other hand, a separate mention of ‘medium goods vehicle’, ‘medium passenger vehicle’, ‘heavy goods vehicle’ and ‘heavy passenger vehicle’ as incorporated in the Section 10 would suggest that it is primarily targeted towards ‘Transport Vehicles’ as opposed to a ‘Light Motor Vehicle’, which as earlier noticed could also be a ‘Non-Transport Vehicle’. The emphasis in the second part of Section 3 should therefore be understood in relation to Medium and Heavy Vehicles in the statutory scheme even prior to the 1994 amendment. The reasonable interpretation of the second part of Section 3 should therefore pertain to a driving license for those driving ‘medium goods vehicle’, ‘medium passenger vehicle’, ‘heavy goods vehicle’, and ‘heavy passenger vehicle’. Such an interpretation and understanding would be logical because medium and heavy vehicles would require greater maneuverability and skill as compared to drivers of the LMV class. The subsequent amendment in Section 10 makes this position even clearer. The relevant portion of the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Amendment Act 54 of 1994 may also guide us here and is reproduced below: "(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;

p. 586 Copy page pinpoint

Digital Supreme Court Reports

(c) Protecting consumers’ interest in Transport Sector; (d) Concern for road safe ty standards, transport of hazardous chemicals and pollution control; (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.

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;

p. 587 Copy page pinpoint

M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi & Ors.

(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.” [emphasis supplied]

42Copy pinpoint42. The classes of ‘medium goods vehicle’, ‘medium passenger vehicle’, ‘heavy goods vehicles’, and ‘heavy passenger vehicles’ as earlier noted in the table, were subsumed under the class of ‘Transport vehicle’. It can logically be inferred that the term ‘Transport Vehicle’ primarily targets vehicles exceeding 7,500 kgs, for the purpose of license regime. The intention of the legislature was to simplify the licensing framework for larger commercial vehicles and at the same time not interdict a LMV license holder to also drive a transport vehicle. The additional requirements for medium and heavy vehicles are also evident from unamended sub-section 1 of Section 7 which reads as under: “Restrictions on the granting of learner’s license for certain vehicles- (1) No person shall be granted a learner’s license- (a) to drive a heavy goods vehicle unless he has held a driving license for atleast 2 years to drive a light motor vehicle or for at least one year to drive a medium goods vehicle. (b) to drive a medium goods vehicle or a medium passenger vehicle unless he has held a driving license for atleast one year to drive a light motor vehicle.” [emphasis supplied]

43Copy pinpoint43. The amended Section 7(1) however, states that: ‘7. Restrictions on the granting of learner’s licences for certain vehicles:- [(1) No person shall be granted a learner’s licence to drive a transport vehicle unless he has held a driving licence to drive a light motor vehicle for at least one year:]

p. 588 Copy page pinpoint

Digital Supreme Court Reports

Therefore, the classes of medium and heavy vehicles stood subsumed under ‘transport vehicles’. Our view on the LMV licence holder’s capability to drive a transport vehicle is also fortified by the unamended and amended Rule 10 of the MV Rules: Rule 10 (pre-amendment) Rule 10 (post-amendment) “10. Application for learner’s 10. Application for learner ’s licence.— licence.— An application for the grant of a An application for the grant of a learner’s licence shall be made in learner’s licence shall be made in Form 2 and shall be accompanied Form 2 and shall be accompanied by,— by,— (a) save as otherwise provided (a) save as otherwise provided in in rule 6, a medical certificate rule 6, a medical certificate in in [Form 1-A]. [Form 1-A]. (b) three copies of the applicant’s (b) three copies of the applicant’s recent 28 [passport size recent 28 [passport size photograph] photograph], (c) appropriate fee as specified (c) appropriate fee as specified in rule 32, in rule 32, (d) in the case of an application (d) in the case of an application for for medium goods vehicle, transport vehicle excluding a medium passenger E-rickshaw or E-Cart, the motor vehicle, a heavy driving licence held by the goods vehicle or a heavy applicant] passenger vehicle, the [(e) proof of residence driving license held by the applicant.” (f) proof of age

44Copy pinpoint44. The insertion of a separate class of ‘Transport Vehicle’ has led to some confusion in legal interpretation. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Annappa Irappa Nesaria31 (for short “Annappa Irappa Nesaria”), the issue before this Court was whether the driver of a Matador van weighing 3,500 kgs which had a ‘goods carriage’ permit could drive a ‘transport vehicle’, if he had a LMV license. The van, which was insured by the appellant, met with an accident on 9.12.1999, causing