- The dispute arose from a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“MV Act”) and
related regulations over whether a driving licence issued for a “Light Motor Vehicle” (LMV)
authorised the holder to drive a “Transport Vehicle of the Light Motor Vehicle class” (i.e., a
transport-vehicle whose unladen (or gross) weight did not exceed 7,500 kg). - The appellant insurer (Bajaj Allianz) challenged earlier precedents which allowed LMV-
licence-holders to operate such transport vehicles without a separate endorsement, on the
ground of insurance liability and road-safety considerations. - The prior decision in Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2017) held that a
transport vehicle whose gross vehicle weight did not exceed 7,500 kg qualified as a “light
motor vehicle” for the purposes of licence classification, and thus a separate transport-vehicle
licence was not required. - The Supreme Court, recognising the complexity and impact of the issue (including
livelihood of drivers and insurance / transport policy), referred the matter to a five-Judge
Constitution Bench via a 3-Judge bench’s reference in March 2022. - On 6 November 2024, the Court (via the five-Judge bench) held the issue: the key question
being whether an LMV licence automatically entitles the holder to drive a transport vehicle of
LMV class (i.e., ≤ 7,500 kg) without separate endorsement.
Issues Raised - Whether a person holding a licence under Section 10(2)(d) of the MV Act for a “light
motor vehicle” is automatically entitled to drive a “transport vehicle” of the light motor
vehicle class (i.e., a transport vehicle whose gross or unladen weight does not exceed 7,500
kg). - Whether the classification of vehicles under the MV Act (and its 1994 Amendment) and
the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (CMVR) indicate a legislative intent that transport
vehicles require a separate licence or endorsement, distinct from LMV licences. - Whether road-safety, insurance liability and driver livelihood concerns should influence
the interpretation of licence categories and whether prior precedent (Mukund Dewangan) was
per incuriam (i.e., made in ignorance of relevant provisions). - Whether the driver’s licence scheme under the MV Act accords with the requirements of
age, medical fitness, training, category of vehicle and endorsement rules (as per Sections 3, 4,
7, 10 and Rules under CMVR).
Contention of the Parties
Appellant – Insurance Company (Bajaj Allianz etc.) –
The appellant contended that the MV Act envisages distinct licence categories for LMVs and
transport vehicles. Specifically, Section 3(1) of the MV Act provides that no person shall
drive a transport vehicle unless the licence authorises him so to drive.
They further argued that the 1994 Amendment (Act 54 of 1994) which introduced “transport
vehicle” in Section 10(2)(e) evidences a legislative intent to separate transport vehicles from
light motor vehicles, thereby requiring a separate or special endorsement for
transport-vehicles.
The appellant relied on rules and provisions such as age eligibility (Section 4(2)), training
and medical fitness requirements for transport vehicle licences (CMVR Rule 5, Rule 31) to
argue that transport vehicles carry a higher licensing standard than ordinary LMVs and thus
should not be treated as equal.
They raised road-safety and insurance liability concerns: allowing LMV licence-holders to
drive transport vehicles without extra training or endorsement might increase risk and
undermine the insurance regime.
Respondent – Claimants / Drivers / Others –
They contended that the prior 2017 judgment in Mukund Dewangan held that transport
vehicles whose gross vehicle weight did not exceed 7,500 kg fall within the definition of
LMV and hence an LMV licence suffices.
They argued that many drivers holding LMV licences have been driving such transport
vehicles and altering that interpretation would adversely impact livelihoods and would
require legislative amendment rather than judicial reinterpretation.
They pointed to the fact that the Union Government had amended the Rules (with
notifications in 2018 and 2021) to align with the 2017 judgment, which provides practical
acceptance of the position.
Reasoning of the Court
The Constitution Bench after hearing the arguments reaffirmed the prior ruling in Mukund
Dewangan, holding that an LMV licence does permit the holder to drive a transport vehicle of
the LMV class (i.e., ≤ 7,500 kg) without a separate endorsement.
It held that although certain statutory provisions (Sections 3, 4, 7; CMVR Rules 5 & 31) were
overlooked in the earlier judgment, the oversight did not render that judgment per incuriam
because the ratio was consistent with the statutory definitions and classification as
interpreted.
The Court noted that the definition of “light motor vehicle” under Section 2(21) read with
Sections 2(15) and 2(48) includes transport vehicles whose unladen or gross vehicle weight is
up to 7,500 kg; the 1994 Amendment replacing various categories in Section 10(2)(e) with
“transport vehicle” did not exclude them from LMV classification.
The Court emphasised that the licensing scheme must be interpreted harmoniously: while
transport vehicles (especially heavy goods/passenger vehicles) may require special
licences/training, the statutory language does not mandate a separate endorsement for
transport-vehicles that fall within the LMV weight limit.
The Court observed the policy and livelihood dimension: given the large number of persons
engaged in driving such vehicles, a judicial reinterpretation that disturbs the
licence-entitlement must be cautious; legislative intervention is more appropriate if a change
is required.
The Court, however, left open that the legislature might revisit the scheme (including
requiring endorsements or differentiated training) given developments in road safety and
commercial transport.
Analysis
Legal clarity achieved – The judgment brings much-needed clarity to the licensing
framework under the MV Act. By affirming that LMV licence-holders may drive transport
vehicles of LMV class (≤ 7,500 kg) without extra endorsement, it stabilises the position for
drivers, insurers and employers.
Balance of interests – The Court balances driver livelihoods (preventing sudden invalidation
of thousands of licences) and regulatory safety concerns. It recognises that legislative policy
rather than judicial reinterpretation is the appropriate channel for large-scale changes.
Interpretation of statutory definitions matters – The case underlines how definitions (e.g.,
“light motor vehicle,” “transport vehicle,” “gross/unladen weight”) and amendments (1994)
must be interpreted collectively, not in isolation. The Court’s reasoning shows that an
amendment introducing “transport vehicle” in Section 10(2)(e) does not, by itself, exclude
such vehicles from LMV classification if weight limits are met.
Implications for insurance and claims – For insurance companies, the judgment means that
they cannot deny liability solely on the ground that the driver’s licence lacked a “transport
vehicle endorsement” when the vehicle fell within the LMV class. This will have financial
implications for insurers and may raise issues of risk assessment.
Policy and safety dimension – The Court’s acknowledgement of road-safety concerns
suggests that while the legal entitlement is affirmed, the issue of training, fitness and
endorsement remains open for legislative or regulatory improvement. Drivers operating
transport vehicles (even light ones) may, in practice, have different hazard profiles.
Finally, legislative revision possibility: The Court signals that if transport policy, commercial
reality and safety concerns necessitate stricter regimes for light transport vehicles (even under
7,500 kg), the legislature may effect change. Drivers and licensing authorities must stay alert
to such potential reforms.
Broader lesson for legal drafting and administration – The judgment highlights the
importance of synchronising statutes (MV Act), rules (CMVR) and practical licensing
categories. Gaps or overlaps in classification may cause prolonged litigation and uncertainty;
legislative clarity is preferable.
- +33 877 554 332
- theknowledgecapsule@ssaslawoffices.com
- Mon - Fri: 9:00 - 18:30