Insurance firms ask SC to reverse 2017 ruling on LMV licences for transport vehicles
Under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 licence for transport vehicles has a different regime altogether from the regime for driving LMV vehicles
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta on Wednesday asked a constitution bench to set aside a 2017 judgement, which permitted licence holders of light motor vehicle (LMV) to drive transport vehicles, as per which even an autorickshaw driver can acquire licence to drive a road-roller, a bus or a goods carriage, posing risk to lives of thousands of people.
Mehta was appearing for state-owned Oriental Insurance Company Limited, which along with several other insurance firms challenged a three-judge bench decision of 2017 in Mukund Dewangan vs Oriental Insurance Company Limited that permitted LMV license holders to be eligible to drive transport vehicles provided it has an unladen weight up to 7,500kg.
These appeals came to be heard by another three-judge bench in March 2022 which referred the matter to a five-judge Constitution bench to reconsider the 2017 decision.
Appearing before the bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Mehta said the 2017 ruling makes the Motor Vehicles Act unworkable and creates a problematic situation which puts people’s lives at risk.
In his submissions given to Court, Mehta said, “If the present law in Mukund Dewangan is not interfered with, unfit drivers will start plying transport vehicles, putting a risk to the lives of thousands of people.”
“If the present law in Mukund Dewangan is not interfered with, a driver, having cleared a driving test to drive an autorickshaw (falling in LMV category), will be eligible to drive a road-roller (as long as the same is less than 7,500 kgs),” he said.
The SG’s submission was supported by senior advocates Sidharth Dave and Jayant Bhushan appearing for private insurance companies. They stated that stringent checks are needed for transport vehicles as they carry strangers who completely entrust their safety in the person driving the vehicle.
Under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 licence for transport vehicles has a different regime altogether from the regime for driving LMV vehicles. Mehta said, “Transport vehicles carry passengers at large. Therefore, a greater check is intended to be kept on the drivers of such vehicles by means of the statutory provisions of the Act.”
He further said this intended ‘check’ on transport vehicles cannot change just because the weight of the vehicle is less than 7,500kg.
Section 2(47) of the Act defines transport vehicles as “public service vehicles (including maxi cab, stage carriage, contract carriage), goods carriage, and educational institution bus”. On the other hand, LMV is described under Section 2(21) as a transport vehicle or omnibus or a motor car or tractor or road-roller, the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500kg.
The insurance firms argued that driving transport vehicles required a separate endorsement from motor licensing authorities as the rules governing transport vehicle license were distinct from LMV license. For instance, LMV license can be obtained at 18 years while minimum age to drive transport vehicle is 20 years. The former is issued for a maximum period of 20 years (if below 30 years of age) while stringent norms of medical checkup are there for driving transport vehicles, license for which is issued for a maximum period of five years.
The Constitution bench, also comprising justices Hrishikesh Roy, PS Narasimha, Pankaj Mithal and Manoj Misra, observed, “These words are of significance or else anybody holding LMV can drive transport vehicles. These provisions show there exists different licensing regimes. The 2017 judgment collapses the two separate features of the statute.”
The submissions of Oriental Insurance filed in court by advocate Archana Pathak Dave, further said, “A separate licence scheme for transport vehicles is quintessential given the special training required to drive such vehicles, which are complex at times, as opposed to driving LMV.”
Section 3 of the Act contemplates a specific endorsement on the driving license for ‘transport’ vehicles, but in view of the law laid down in the 2017 decision, this is rendered to nullity, the state-owned insurance company said. Motor Vehicle Rules prescribe separate syllabus for training drivers for non-transport and transport vehicles. The Act requires a minimum period of 21 days and 30 days training for non-transport and transport vehicles respectively. Highlighting this distinction, Mehta pointed out, “The requirements for gaining transport vehicle licenses are more stringent to that for non-transport vehicles.”
If the 2017 decision is to be applied, Mehta said, “This would lead to a problematic situation” as he explained that Rule 8A of MV Rules allows a person to get E-rickshaw license after 10 days of training. As per the 2017 direction, any LMV license holder will be eligible to drive an auto-rickshaw or e-rickshaw.
Moreover, the Act envisages permits for transport vehicles while no permit is required to drive LMV. The 2017 ruling failed to clarify whether permit is required to drive transport vehicles falling under LMV category, Mehta added.
The 2017 decision had resulted on an amendment introduced by the Centre in 1994 which inserted transport vehicles into a long list of vehicles that could be driven on the strength of a driving license issued by the transport authorities. This decision held that LMV would include ‘Transport Vehicles’ in cases where the gross weight of such vehicle is less that 7500 kgs.
A total of over 75 appeals filed by various insurance companies are being heard by the Constitution bench, which will continue hearing the matter on Thursday.