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

Held: The specific authorization does not mean that a person holding an LMV license which covers ‘Transport vehicle’, would be disentitled to drive a ‘Transport Vehicle’ – The emphasis in the second part of Section 3 is in relation to Medium and Heavy Vehicles in the statutory scheme even prior to the 1994 amendment – Second part of Section 3 pertains to a driving license for those driving ‘medium goods vehicle’, ‘medium passenger vehicle’, ‘heavy goods vehicle’, and ‘heavy passenger vehicle’ – Such an interpretation is 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 – ‘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 – National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Annappa Irappa Nesaria [2008] 1 SCR 1061 holding that the 1994 amendment had a prospective operation, partially overruled – ‘Transport Vehicle’, does not exclude transport vehicles already classified as ‘LMV’, under Section 10 – Thus, ‘Transport vehicles’ mentioned in Section 10 would cover only those vehicles whose gross vehicle weight is above 7,500 kgs – Such an interpretation aligns with the broader purpose of the amendments and ensures that the licensing regime remains efficient and practical for vehicle owners and drivers – Section 10 is to be read with Section 2(21) which defines a ‘Light Motor Vehicle’. [Paras 41, 42, 44.3, 45]

Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 – Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 – 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: Held: No – The additional eligibility criteria specified in the MV Act and MV Rules will apply only to such vehicle (‘medium goods vehicle’, ‘medium passenger vehicle’, ‘heavy goods vehicle’ and ‘heavy passenger vehicle’), whose gross weight exceeds 7,500 Kg – This interpretation on how the licensing regime is to operate for drivers under the statutory scheme will not compromise the road safety concerns and will also effectively address the livelihood issues for drivers operating Transport Vehicles in legally operating “Transport vehicles” (below 7,500 Kg), with their LMV driving license. [Paras 131(III), 130]

Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 – ss.3(1), 2(21), 10 – Harmonious construction – Various provisions were cited to contend that the legislature had placed LMVs and Transport Vehicles under separate classes and that the holder of a LMV license cannot drive a Transport Vehicle without a separate endorsement – Whether the second part of s.3(1) which emphasizes the necessity of specific requirement of a driving license for a ‘Transport Vehicle’ overrides the definition of LMV in s.2(21) : Held: No – Section 3 is not a special provision overriding the strict and emphatic definition of LMV, given in Section 2(21) and the separate class of ‘Light Motor Vehicle’ provided in Section 10 – Section 2(21) uses the term ‘means’ and there is an affirmation of certainty in the wordings of the definition and it is to be recognized sensu stricto in a technical sense and must not be understood loosely – Section 3 does not disentitle the LMV license holders to drive transport vehicles of the permissible weight category – To say otherwise would be incompatible and would render the strict definition clause, sterile and a ‘dead letter’ – In view of a harmonious construction of both sections, for LMV licence holders, a separate endorsement under ‘Transport Vehicle’ class would be unnecessary for driving LMV class of vehicles – Additional licensing requirements will have no application for the LMV class of vehicles but will be needed only for such ‘Transport Vehicles’, which by virtue of their gross weight fall in the Medium and Heavy category – This construction also fulfills the legislative purpose to ensure road safety – Age restrictions outlined in Section 4, the requirement of a medical certificate, and the criteria under Section 7 should reasonably apply only for the medium and heavy transport vehicles whose gross weight will be above 7500 Kg – A person holding a LMV license is equally competent to drive a Transport Vehicle whose gross weight does not exceed 7,500 kgs – The reference to ‘transport vehicle’ in Section 3(1) and other sections of the Act and Rules apply to only those vehicles which fall beyond the scope of the sensu stricto definition under Section 2(21) – This interpretation would ensure that no provision or word is rendered otiose and the licensing regime remains coherent with the legislative intent. [Paras 74, 85]

Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 – The ratio in Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. [2017] 7 SCR 765 [Mukund Dewangan (2017)], if per incuriam for not noticing inter alia ss.4(1), 7, 14, second proviso to s.15, ss.180, 181 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989: Held: No – Answering the reference, 3 Judge Bench in Mukund Dewangan (2017) analysed key provisions of the Act and Rules and rightly concluded inter alia that the holder of a license for a ‘Light Motor Vehicle’ class need not have a separate endorsement 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 – Though, the judgment did not analyse the provisions that distinguish transport and non-transport vehicles however, the statutory scheme of Motor Vehicle Act is more nuanced than the simple weight-based distinction made in the said judgment – The Court also failed to notice ss.31(2) and (3) which specify ‘Transport’ and ‘Non-Transport’ vehicles however, the judgment gave due consideration to the important statutory provisions – The overlooked provisions would not alter the eventual pronouncement – There are no glaring error or omission that would alter the outcome of the case. [Paras 113-115]

Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 – s.2(21) – Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) ‘means’ a ‘Transport Vehicle’ – ‘means’ – Meaning: Held: As per the definition clause of LMV, it inter-alia ‘means’ a ‘Transport Vehicle’ – The use of the word ‘means’ 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 – There is no distinction between the two classes of vehicles – Such a definition is an explicit statement of the full connotation of a term and there is no ambiguity. [Para 32]

Interpretation of Statutes – Importance of definition sections – Discussed.

Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 – Purpose and objective – Discussed. Interpretation of Statutes – Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 – Social welfare legislation – Interpretation:

Held: 1988 Act is fundamentally a social welfare legislation providing a mechanism for victims and their families to seek compensation for loss or injury resulting from road accidents – Also, its provisions regarding licensing and penalties for traffic violations serve the broader purpose of promoting road safety – Thus, any interpretation of its provisions must ensure a mechanism for timely compensation and relief for victims of road accidents and also promote overall road safety. [Para 15]

Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 – s.2(21) – Strict interpretation of: Held: 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. [Para 35]

Interpretation of Statutes – Principles of statutory interpretation – Discussed.

Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 – Compensation – Accidents involving ‘transport vehicles’ operated by individuals holding licenses to drive ‘light motor vehicles’ – Payment of claims disputed by insurance companies:

Held: Compensation must not be denied for minor technical breaches of the licensing conditions – The emphasis on ‘Transport Vehicle’ in the licensing scheme has to be understood only in the context of the ‘medium’ and ‘heavy’ vehicles – This harmonious construction also aligns with the objective of the 1994 amendment in Section 10(2) to simplify the licensing procedure – This would prevent insurance companies from taking a technical plea to defeat a legitimate claim for compensation involving an insured vehicle weighing below 7,500 kgs driven by a person holding a driving license of a ‘Light Motor Vehicle’ class. [Paras 76, 126, 127] Judgments – Per incuriam – When:

Held: A decision is per incuriam only when the overlooked statutory provision or legal precedent is central to the legal issue in question and might have led to a different outcome if those overlooked provisions were considered – It must be an inconsistent provision and a glaring case of obtrusive omission – The doctrine of per incuriam applies strictly to the ratio decidendi and not to obiter dicta – If a court doubts the correctness of a precedent, the appropriate step is to either follow the decision or refer it to a larger Bench for reconsideration – It has to be shown that some part of the decision was based on a reasoning which was demonstrably wrong, for applying the principle of per incuriam – In exceptional cases, where by obvious inadvertence or oversight, a judgment fails to notice a plain statutory provision or obligatory authority running counter to the reasoning and result reached, the principle of per incuriam may apply. [Para 111]

Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 – Impact of Mukund Dewangan (2017) that allowed Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) license holders to drive Transport Vehicles below 7500 Kg, on road safety, if any – Plea of Insurance Companies that if Mukund Dewangan (2017) is not interfered with, unfit drivers will start plying Transport Vehicles putting at risk the lives of thousands of people: Held: Rejected – No empirical data was produced to show that road accidents in India have increased as a direct result of drivers with LMV license, plying a transport vehicle of LMV class of vehicles whose gross weight is within 7500 Kg – Road safety is indeed an important objective of the MV Act but Court’s reasoning must not be founded on unverified assumptions without any empirical data – While the Court is mindful of issues of road safety, the task of crafting policy lies within the domain of the legislature – Court cannot dictate policy decisions or rewrite laws. [Para 117] Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 – Whether a driver holding a license for a ‘Light motor vehicle’ can operate a ‘Transport Vehicle’ without obtaining a specific endorsement – Various conflicting judgments for over 25 years:

Held: Judgments in Ashok Gangadhar Maratha, Nagashetty, S. Iyyapan and Kulwant Singh holding that a separate endorsement for a ‘transport vehicle’ are not necessary are upheld however, judgments in Prabhu Lal, Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir and Angad Kol which held otherwise are overruled. [Para 96.3] Words and Phrases – “per incuriam” – Discussed.