Holding

The Court referred the questions concerning the definition of "light motor vehicle", the scope of "transport vehicle", and the necessity of an endorsement for LMV licence holders to a larger Bench for resolution.

Summary

The appeal concerned whether a holder of a licence to drive a light motor vehicle (LMV) must obtain a separate endorsement to drive a transport vehicle that falls within the LMV weight class. The Court examined the definitions of "light motor vehicle" and "transport vehicle" under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the effect of the 1994 amendment (Act 54) that substituted "transport vehicle" for medium and heavy vehicle categories, and the impact of subsequent rule changes on Forms 4 and 6. Conflicting decisions of various High Courts and Supreme Court benches on the pre‑ and post‑amendment position were highlighted. After analysing the statutory scheme, the Court found the issue unsettled and referred the matter to a larger Bench to resolve six specific questions relating to the definition, exclusion, endorsement requirement, and effect of the amendment and rule changes. The appeal was therefore not decided on merits but sent for further consideration.

Issues considered

What is the proper meaning of "light motor vehicle" under s.2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and does it exclude transport vehicles?
Whether a transport vehicle or omnibus whose gross vehicle weight does not exceed 7,500 kg qualifies as a "light motor vehicle" and can be driven by a licence holder of class "light motor vehicle" under s.10(2)(d)
Whether the 1994 amendment (Act 54) that substituted "transport vehicle" for medium and heavy vehicle categories affects the applicability of s.10(2)(d) and s.2(41) to transport vehicles of LMV weight
Whether the insertion of "transport vehicle" in s.10(2)(e) is limited to the substituted classes only or also excludes transport vehicles of the LMV class
Effect of the amendment of Form 4 on the procedure for obtaining a licence to drive a transport vehicle of LMV class
Whether the procedural changes introduced by the amendment have altered the requirement of obtaining an endorsement for transport vehicles

Legislation cited

Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989s. 126, s. 126A, s. 14, s. 16, s. 17, s. 31, s. 32, s. 34, s. 8
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988s. 10, s. 2(10), s. 2(15), s. 2(16), s. 2(17), s. 2(21), s. 2(23), s. 2(24), s. 2(26), s. 2(29), s. 2(44), s. 2(47), s. 2(48), s. 3, s. 41, s. 54, s. 66, s. 9
Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994s. 54

Subjects

driving licencelight motor vehicletransport vehicleendorsementMotor Vehicles Actinsurance liabilityinterpretationamendmentlarger bench

Judgment

[2016] 3 S.C.R. 1075

MUKUND DEWANGAN A

v.

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ETC.

(Civil Appeal No. 5826of2011)
B
FEBRUARY 11, 2016

[KURIAN JOSEPH AND ARUN MISHRA, JJ.]

·, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - ss.2(21), (41); 10(2)(d) - Driving
licence - Whether for the drivers having licence to drive 'light motor c
vehicles' there is necessity of obtaining endorsement to drive the
'transport vehicle' when the 'transport vehicle' is of class of 'light
motor vehicle' - Conflicting decision of Supreme Court on the
question - Held: Matter referred to Larger Bench to decide the
questions: {l) Meaning required to be given to definition 'light motor
vehicle' as defined u/s. 2(21); (2) whether 'transport vehicle' D
excluded from the definition of 'light motor vehicle'; (3) Whether
'transport vehicle' and 'omnibus' the "gross vehicle weight" of either
of which does not exceed 7500 kgs. would be a "light motor vehicle"
and also motor-car or tractor or a road roller, "unladen weight" of
which does not exceed 7500 kgs. and holder of licence to drive E
class of "light motor vehicle" as provided in section 10(2}(d) 1i,ould
· be competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the "gross
vehicle weight" of which does not exceed 7500 kgs. or a motor-car
or tractor or road roller, the "unladen weight" of which doefi not
exceed 7500 kgs.; (4) Effect of the amendment made by virtue of
Act No.54 of 1994 while substituting clauses (e) to (h) of section F
10(2) which contained "medium goods vehicle", "medium passenger
motor vehicle", "heavy goods vehicle" and "heavy passenger motor
vehicle" by "transport vehicle"; (5) Whether insertion of expression
'transport vehicle' under section I 0(2){e) is related to said substituted
classes only or it also excluded transport vehicle of light motor G
vehicle class from purview of Sections 10(2)(d) and 2(41) of the
Act; (6) 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.
H
1075
1076 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 3 S.C.R.

A Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kokilaben
Chandravadan & Ors. (1987) 2 SCC 654: 1987 (2)
SCR 752: Sohan Lal Passi v. P. Sesh Reddy & Ors.
(1996) 5 SCC 21 : 1996 (3) Suppl. SCR 647 ; Ashok
Gangadhar Mara/ha v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
(1999) 6 sec 620: 1999 (2) Suppl. SCR 202 :
B
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Zaharulnisha & Ors.
(2008) 12 SCC 385: 2008 (7) SCR 58 : National
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh (2004) 3 SCC 297:
2004 (1) SCR 180 ; Ne11· India Assurance Co. Ltd. v.
Prabhu Lal (2008) 1 SCC 696: 2007 (12) SCR 724;
c New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Roshanben
Rahemansha Fakir & Anr. (2008) 8 SCC 253: 2008
(8) SCR 328 : National Insurance Co. Ltd. v, Annappa
!rappa Nesariu alias Nesaragi & Ors. (2008) 3 SCC
464: 2008 (1) SCR 1061 ; Oriemal Insurance Co. Ltd.
v. Angad Kol & Ors. (2009) 11 SCC 356: 2009 (2) SCR
D
695 ; S.Iyyapan v. United India Insurance Co. (2013) 7
SCC 62: 2013 (7) SCR 45; Ku/want Singh & Ors. v.
Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. (2015) 2 SCC 186;
Nagashetty v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
(2001) 8 SCC 56: 2001 (1) Suppl. SCR 656- referred
I:, to.
Case Law Reference
1987 (2) SCR 752 referred to Para 22
1996 (3) Suppl. SCR 647 referred to Para 23
1999 (2) Suppl. SCR 202 referred to Para 24
F
2()08 (7) SCR 58 referred to Para 25
2004 (1) SCR 180 referred to Para 25
2007 (12) SCR 724 referred to Para 26
2008 (8) SCR 328 referred to Para 27
G 2008 (1) SCR 1061 referred to Para 28
2009 (2) SCR 695 referred to Para 30
2013 (7) SCR 45 referred to Para 32
(2015) 2 sec 186 referred to Para 33
2001 (1) Suppl. SCR 656 referred to Para 34
H
MUKUND DEWANGAN v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. 1077
ETC.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5826 A
of2011.
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.02.2011 of the High Court
ofChhattisgarh at Bilaspur in M.A. No. 940 of2006
WITH
B
SLP(C) Nos. 32828, 32833, 32835, 32827 of2010. C.A. Nos. 4068-
4069, 8992 of2012, SLP(C) No. 16082of2012, SLP(C) Nos. 887-890,
28455-28456of2013, C.A. No. 6379of2013, SLP(C) Nos. 8709-8710,
8712-8713, 14333-14334, 8704-8706, 13008, 15759-15760, 36364-36365
of 2014, C.A. No. 9990 of 2014, SLP(C) Nos. 20072, 3300, 3302 of
2015, SLP(C) Nos. 6429, 15924of2015. c
Ms. Kiran Suri, Sr. Adv., Rajeev Kumar Bansal, Raj Singh Rana,
Akshay K. Ghai, R. K. Kapoor, Ms. Rekha Giri, Ms. Sai Jyotsna, Anis
Ahmed Khan, Praveen Sehrawat Priyadarshi Bane1:jee, Piyush Sharma,
Vikram Saini, A. K. Mishra, P. K. Jain, Saurabh Jain, S. P. Singh Rathore,
P. K. Goswami, Sudhakar Dwivedi, Uday Prakash Yadav, Raghavendra D
Shukla, Apoorv Kurup, Aditya Chanakya Boxipatra, Rohit Rathi,
Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, Ms. Kirti Mishra, S. J. Amith, Gautam
Kumar, Dr. (Mrs.) Vipin Gupta, Jay Kishore Singh, Gautam Godara,
Anand V. Selvam, Ravindra K. Adsure, H.K. Chaturvedi, Ms. Roopali
Chaturvedi, Ms. Tanuj Bagga Sharma, Dr. Praveen Hans, N. D. B. E
Raju, Rohan Ganpathy, N. danpathy, Sameer Shrivastava, Vijeta Ohri,
Akshat Shrivastava, Vishnu Mehra, Ms. Sakshi Mittal, Anil Kumar, Sumit
Attri, Uday B. Dube, V. N. Raghupathy, Balaji Srinivasan, Ms. Meenakshi
Chauhan, Ravi Bakshi. Sudhir Mathur, Yash Pal Dhingra, Dr. Meera
Agarwal, R. C. Mishra,Amarjeet Singh Dheman, Ankolekar Gurudatta,
Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, Mukesh Kumar Singh, R. C. Mishra, Arup F
Banerjee, An is Ahmed Khan, V.K. Gupta, T.J.Sharma, Rajinder Mathur,
Apoorv Kurup, A.C. Boxipatra. Ad vs. for the Appellant.
Ms. Priyadarshi Gopal, Ms. Rameeza Hakeem. (For M/s Law
Associates), G. Balaji, Ms. Soayi B. Qureshi, Ravi Prakash, Ms. Udita
Singh, Chandra Prakash. Rahul Kumar, Ms. Meenakshi Midha, C. S. G
Ashri. Ms. Taniya Pandey, Ms. Shanta Devi Raman, Garvesh Kabra,
Arbaaz Hussain, Roh it Sinha, Sanjay Kumar Singh, Pradeep Gaur, Amit
Gaur,Ambhoj Kr. Sinha, M. K. Dua, Kishore Rawat,Anish Kumar Gupta,
Ms. Deep Shikla Bharat. Brajesh Kumar, Chandra Shekhar Suman,
Varinder Kumar Sharma, Nawal Kishore Sahu, Dr. Neera Agarwal, R.
H
1078 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 3 S.C.R.

A C. Mishra, Amarjeet Singh Dheman, Javed M. Rao, T. N. Saxena, H.
C. Kharbanda, Shahid Ali Rao, Nand Ram, S. L. Gupta, Guru Nath R.
Naik, R. K. Gupta, Ram Ashray, Vikash Chandra, Ravinder Kumar ·
Wadhawan, Varinder Kumar Sharma, Arvind Kumar Ti wary, Jay Prakash
Yadav, R. A. Gupta, C. K. Rai, Ms. Neerja Sachdeva, Ms. Meera Mathur,
Ajay Singh, Varinder Kumar, Nafis A. Siddiqui, Ms. Nidhi, B.
B
Subrahmanya Prasad, Ms. Rameeya Hakeem, Mis. Law Associates,
Gautam Narayan, Ambhoj Kumar Sinha, Advs. for the Respondents.
The following order of the Court was delivered by
ARUN MISHRA, J. I. The question raised is whether for the
c drivers having licence to drive light motor vehicles there is a necessity of
obtaining endorsement to drive the transport vehicle when the transport
vehicle is of class of light motor vehicle.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. For
consideration of aforesaid question, it is necessary to refer to various
D provisions and decisions. ·
3. Driving licence has been defined in section 2( I 0) of the Act of
1988. The provision is extracted hereinbelow :
"2(10) "driving licence" means the licence issued by a
coinpetent authority under Chapter Il authorising the
E person specified therein to drive, otherwise than as a
learner, a motor vehicle or a motor vehicle of any specified
class or description."
Gross vehicle weight has been defined in section 2(15) thus:
"2(15) "gross vehicle weight" means in _,respect of any
F
vehicle the total weight of the vehicle and load certified
and registered by the registering authority as permissible
for that vehicle;"
Heavy goods vehicle has been defined in section 2( 16) to mean:
G "2(16) "heavy goods vehicle" means any goods carriage
the gross vehicle weight of which, or a tractor or a road-
roller the unladen weight of either of which, exceeds 12,000
kilograms;"
Heavy passenger motor vehicle has been defined in section 2(17)
H thus:
MUKUND DEWANGAN v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. 1079
ETC. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

"2(17) "heavy passenger motor vehicle" means any public A
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;"
Light motor vehicle has been defined in section 2(21) of the Act 8
thus:
"2(21) "light motor vehicle" means a transport vehicle or
omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a
motor-car or tractor or road-roller the unladen weight of
any of which, does not exceed 7,500 kilograms;" c
Medium goods vehicle has been defined in section 2(23) to mean:
"2(23) "medium goods vehicle" means any goods carriage
other than a light motor vehicle or a heavy goods vehicle;"
Medium passenger motor vehicle is defined under section 2(24) D
thus:
"2(24) "medium passenger motor vehicle" means any
public service vehicle or private service vehicle, or
educational institution bus other than a motor-cycle, invalid
carriage, light motor vehicle or heavy passenger motor
E
vehicle;"
Motor car has been defined in section 2(26) of the Act of 1988
thus:
"2(26) "motor-car" means any motor vehicle other than a
transport vehicle, omnibus.• ro~d-roller, tractor, motor-cycle F
or invalid carriage;"
"Omnibus" has been defined in section 2(29) thus :
"2(29) "omnibus" means any motor vehicle constructed or
adapted to carry more than six persons excluding the
driver;" G

"Tractor" has been defined in section 2(44) of the Act thus:
"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;"
H
1080. SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016) 3 S.C.R.

A "Transport vehicle has been defined in section 2( 4 7) thus :
"2(47) "transport vehicle" means a public service vehicle,
a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private
service vehicle;" ·~

"Unladen weight" has been defined in section 2( 48) thus :
B
"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
c the weight of the vehicle with the heaviest such alternative
part or body;"
4. The provisions under section 2 define heavy goods vehicles,
heavy passenger motor vehicle, medium goods vehicle, medium passenger
motor vehicle and light motor"Vehicle separately. Section 2(21) deals
D with class of Light Motor Vehicle which includes a transport vehicle or
omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed
7500 kgs. or a motor car or tractor or road roller, the unladen weight of
any of which does not exceed 7500 kgs. The transport vehicle has been
defined in section 2(47), omnibus has been defined in section 2(29).
E However, the transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of
which does not exceed 7500 kgs., has been included in section 2(21) of
the Act of 1988. The gross vehicle weight has been defined in section
2(15). In the case of Light Motor Vehicle, the total weight of the transport
vehicle or omnibus, the load certified by the Registering Authority should
not exceed 7500 kgs. and in case of motor car, tractor or road roller, it is
F necessary that unladen weight as defined in section 2(48) of.the Act of
1988 should not exceed 7500 kgs.
5. To dilate further upon the issue, it is necessary to take note of
other provisions of the Act. Public service vehicle, goods carriage, an
educational institution bus and private service vehicle are included in
G transport vehicles. They are defined in Sections 2(35), 2( 14 ), 2( 11) and
2{33) respectively. The provisions are extracted hereunder:-
"2(35) "public service vehicle" means any motor vehicle
used or adapted to be used for the carriage of passengers
for hire or reward, and includes a maxi-cab, a motor-cab,
H contract carriage, and stage carriage;"
MUKUND DEWANGAN v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. 1081
ETC. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

"2(14) "goods carriage" means any motor vehicle A
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 B
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 c
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;"
D
6. Section 3 of the Act of 1988 deals with the necessity for driving
licence. Same is extracted below :
"3. Necessity for driving licence.- (1) No person shall drive
a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an
effective driving licence issued to him authorising him to E
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.
F
(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 @.S lllay be prescribed by the
Central Government."
7. Section 9 deals with grant of driving licence which reads as
G
under:
"9. Grant of driving licence.- (1) Any person who is not
for the time being disqualified for holding or obtaining a
driving licence may apply to the licensing authority having
jurisdiction in the area-
H
1082 SUPREME COURl' REPORTS (2016] 3 S.C.R.

A (i) in which he ordinarily resides or carries on business, or
(ii) in which the school or establishment referred to in sec-
tion 12 from where he is receiving or has received instruc-
tion in driving a motor vehicle is situated,
for the issue to him of a driving licence.
B
(2) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be in such
form and shall be accompanied by such fee and such docu-
ments as may be prescribed by the Central Government.
(3) If the applicant passes such test as may be prescribed
C by the Central Government, he shall be issued the driving
licence:
Provided that no such test shall be necessary where the
applicant produces proof to show that -
(a) (i) the applicant has previously held a driving licence
D and that the period between the date of expiry of that li-
cence and the date of such application docs not exceed five
years; or
(ii) the applicant holds or has previously held a driving
licence to drive ~uch class of vehicle issued under section
E 18; or
(iii) the applicant holds a driving licence to drive such class
of vehicle issued by a competent authority of any country
outside India, subject to the condition that the applicant
complies with the provisions of sub -section (3) of section
F 8,
(b) the applicant is not suffering from any disease or dis-
ability which is likely to cause the driving by him to be a
source of danger to the public; and the licensing authority
may, for that purpose, require the applicant to produce a
G medical certificate in the same form and in the same man-
ner as is referred to in sub-section (3) of section 8.
Provided further that where the application is for a
driving licence to drive a motor vehicle (not being a tmns-
port vehicle), the licensing authority may exempt the ap-
H plicant from the test of competence to drive prescribed
MUKUND DEWANGAN v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. 1083
CTC. [ARUN MISHRA, J.l

under this sub-section, if the applicant possesses a driving A
certificate issued by an automobile association recognised
in this behalf by the State Government.
(4) Where the application is for a licence to drive a trans-
port vehicle, no such authorisation shall be granted to any
applicant unless he possesses such minimum educational 8
qualification as may be prescribed hy the Central Govern-
ment and a driving certificate issued by a school or estab-
lishment referred to in section 12.
(5) Where the applicant does not pass the test, be may be
permitted to reappear for the test aftci· a period of seven C
days:
Provided that where the applicant does not pass the test
even after three appearances, be shall not he qualified to
reappear for such test before the expiry of a period of sixty
days from the elate of last such test. o
(6) The test of competence to drive shall b<' carried out in
a vehicle of the type to which the application refers:
Provided that a person who passed a test in dri\'ing a
motor cycle with gear shall be deemed also to have passed
a test in driving a motor cycle without gear. E
(7) When any ap1llication has beru duly made to the appro-
priate licensing authority and the applicant has ~atisfied such
authority of his competence to drive, the licensing author-
ity shall issue the applicant a driving licence unless the
applicant is for the time being disqualfried for holding or F
· obtaining a driving licence:
#ti ...

Provided that a licensing authority may issue a driving
licence to drive a motor cycle or a light motor vehicle not-
withstanding that it is not the appropriate licensing author-
ity, if the licensing authority is satisfied that there is good G
and sufficient reason for the applicant's inability to apply to
the appropriate licensing authority:
Provided further that the licensing authority shall not
issue a new driving licence to the applicant, if he had previ-
ously held a driving licence, unless it is satisfied that there H
1084 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 3 S.C.R.

A is good and sufficient reason for his inability to obtain a
duplicate copy of his former licence.
(8) If the licensing authority is satisfied, after giving the
applicant an opportunity of being heard, that he--
(a) is a habitual criminal or a habitual drunkard; or
B
(b) is a habitual addict to any narcotic drug or psychotropic
substance within the meaning of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; (61 of 1985); or
(c) is a person whose licence to drive any motor vehicle
C has, at any time earlier, been revoked,
it may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, make an or-
der refusing to issue a driving licence to such person and
any person aggrieved by an order made by a licensing au-
thority under this sub-section may, within thirty days of the
D receipt of the order, appeal to the prescribed authority.
(9) Any driving licence for driving a motor cycle in force
immediately before the commencement of this Act shall,
after such commencement, be deemed to be effective for
driving a motor cycle with or without gear."
E 8. The application has to be made in such form as may be
prescribed. Section 10 deals with the form and contents of the licence to
drive. Section I 0 before its amendment made in 1994 by Act 54of1994
provided as under :
"10. Form and contents of licences to driver.- (1) Every
F learner's licence and driving licence, except a driving
licence issued under section 18, shall be in such form and
shall contain such information as may be prescribed by the
Central Government.
(2) A learnel"'s licence o"i';:,as the case may be, driving li~ence
G shall also be expressed as entit~ing the holder to drive a
motor vehicle of one or more of the following classes,
namely:-
(a) motor cycle without gear;
(b) motor cycle with gear;
(c) invalid carriage;
H
MUKUND DEWANGAN v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. 1085
ETC. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

(d) light motor vehicle; A
{e) medium goods vehicle;
(t) medium passenger motor vehicle;
(g) heavy goods vehicle;
(h) heavy passenger motor vehicle;"
(i) road-roller;
B
(j) motor vehicle of a specified description. "
9. Jt is clear from the provisions of section I 0{2)that the classes
of vehicles have been separately provided. Light motor vehicle has been
provided in section 10(2)(d). Transport vehicle had been inserted in 1994
in place of sections 10(2)(e) to 10(2.)(h), in place of medium goods
vehicle as provided in section 10(2)(e), medium passenger motor vehicle c
provided in section I 0(2)(t), heavy goods vehicle in section I 0(2)(g) and
heavy passenger motor vehicle in section I 0(2)(h). Thus it is apparent
that transport vehicles were included under the Act of 1988 under the
category of "light motor vehicle", "heavy motor vehicle" etc. as per
gross vehicle weight or unladen weight, as the case may be, is apparent D
from a bare reading of the aforesaid classification given in section I 0(2)
oftheAct read with definition oflight motor vehicle as defined in section
2(21) of the Act.
The provisions contained in section 10 of the Act had been amended ,.
vi de Amendment Act 54of1994. The Statement of Objects and Reasons
E
of the Amendment Act 54 of 1994 reads :
"Amendment Act 54 of 1994 - Statement of Objects and
Reasons. - The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988)
consolidated and rationalised various laws regulating road
transport. The Act came into force with effect from 1st July,
F
1989 replacing the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
2. After the coming into force of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988, Government received a number of
representations and suggestions from the state govt.
transport operators and members of public regarding the
inconvenience faced by them because of the operation of G
some of the provisions of the 1988 Act. A Review
Committee was, therefore, constituted by the Government
in March, 1990 to examine and review the 1988 Act.
3. The recommendations of the Review Committee were
H
1086 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 3 S.C.R.

A forwarded to the State Governments for comments and they
generally agree with these recommendations. The
Government also considered a large num her of
representations received, after finalisation of the Report
of the Review Committee, from the transport operators and
public for making amendments in the Act. The draft of the
B
proposals based on the recommendation of the Review
Committee and representations from the public were placed
before the Transport Development Council for seeking
their views in the matter. The important suggestions made
by the Transport Development Council relate to, or are on
c account of, -
(a) The introduction of newer type of vehicles and fast
increasing number of both commercial and personal
vehicles in the country.
(b) Providing adequate compensation to victims ofroad
D accidents without going into longdrawn procedure;
(c) Protecting consumers' interest in Transport
Sector;
(d) Concern for road safety standards, transport of
E 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
F liberalisation in the field of Road Transport;
(g) Enhancing penalties for traffic offenders.
4. Therefore, the proposed legislation has been prepared
in the light of the above background. The· Bill inter alia
provides for -
G
(a) modification and amplification of certain definitio11s
of new type of vehicles ;
(b) simplification of procedure for grant of driving
licences;
H (c) putting restrictions on the alteration of vehicles;
MUKUND DEWANGAN v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. 1087
ETC. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

(d) certain exemptions for vehicles running on non- A
polluting fuels;
(e) ceilings or'. h.dividuals or company holdings
removed to curb "b, .1a ii" holdings;
(f) states authorised to appoint one or more State
B
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 I sale by the traders;
(h) increase in the amount of compensation of the c
victims of hit and run cases;
(i) removal of time limit for filling of application by
road accident victims for
~ l
compensation;
.

(j) punishmentdmcase of certain offences is made
stringent; D
(k) a new pre-detcrniined formula for payment of
compensation to road accident victims on the basis of age/
income, which is more liberal and rational.
5. The Law Commission in its 119th Report had
E
recommended that every application for a claim be made
to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in
which the accident occurred or to the Claims Tribunal within
the local limits of whose jurisdiction the claimant resides
or carries on business or within the local limits of whose
jurisdiction the defendant resides, at the option of the F
claimant. The bill also makes necessary provision to give
effect to the said recommendation."
Section I 0 has been amended vide Act 54/1994 to the following
effect:
"10. Form and contents of licenc.es tO drive.-(1) Every · · G
learner's licence and driving licence, except a driving
licence issued under section 18, shall be in such form and
shall contain such information as may be prescribed by the
Central Government.
(2) A learner's licence or, as the· case may be., driving J-1
1088 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016) 3 S.C.R.

A licence shall also be expressed as entitling the holder to
drive a motor vehicle of one or more of the following
classes, namely:-
(a) motor cycle withol_lt gear;
(b) motor cycle with gear;
B (c) invalid carriage;
(d) light motor vehicle;
(e) transport vehicle;
(i) road-roller;
(j) motor vehicle of a specified description."·
10. Fonn 4 which was in vogue till 28.3.2001 as prescribed under
c Rule 14 .of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred
to as 'the Rules of 1989'), is extracted hereunder:
"FORM 4
[See Rule 14]
Form of Application for Licence to drive a Motor Vehicle
D , To, [passport size
Photograph I
THE LICENSING AUTHORITY,

I apply for a licence to enable me to drive vehicles of the
E following description:-
(a) Motor cycle without gear
(b) Motor cycle with gear
(c) Invalid Carriage
(d) Light Motor Vehicle
F (e) Medium Goods Vehicle
(t) Medium }>assenger Motor Vehicle
(g) Heavy Goods Vehicle
(h) Heavy Passenger Motor Vehicle
(i) Road roller
G) Motor Vehicle of the following description.
G
Particulars to be furnished by the Applicant
1. Name
2. Son/wife/daughter of .................•...................
3.Permanent address .................•..•.....••.•.....•
(Proof to be enclosed)
H
MUKUND DEWANGAN v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. 1089
ETC. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

4.Temporary address/ Official address (if any) .•..•..•.•... A
5. Date of birth ....•..............••••••.•...........•.••.
(Proof to be en~lo~!!d)
6. Educational qualific:ati .m •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
7. Identification mark ( 1) ........•...........•...•..
(2) ..........•..•.............
B
8. Optional/Blood Group - RH factor •.•.•..............•.
9. Have you previously held driving licence? ..............•
If so, give details.
IO.Particulars and date of every conviction
which has been ordered to be endorsed
on any licence held by the applicant ...•.•.•.•.•.••••.••• c
11.Have you been disqualified for obtaining
a licence to drive? If so, for what reason? .......••••...
12.Have you been subjected to a driving test as to your
fitness or ability to driv~ a vehicle in respect of which a
licence to drive is applied for? If so, give the following
D
details :-
Date of test Testing Authority Result of test
(1)
(2)
(3)
13. I enclose three copies of my recent [passport size E
photographs](where laminated card is used, no photo-
graphs are required) .........•.......•.•....
14. I enclose Learner's licence No .•.•.•..•...... dated
•••.•...•.•..... issued by Licensing Authority.
15. I enclose the Driv:ing Certificate No ...••.••..•.•.••
F
........•.•......... dated ...•........ issued by ......•.......•••
16. I have submitted along with my application for learner's
licence the written consent of parent I guardian.
17. I have submitted along with the application for learner's
licence.II enclose the medical fitness certificate.
18. I am exempted from the medical test under rule 6 of G
the Central Motor Vehicles Rules , 1989.
19. I am exempted from preliminary test under rule 11 (2)
of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules 1989.
20. I have p~id the fee of Rs.
I hereby declare that to the best of my knowledge and
H
1090 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 3 S.C.R.

A belief the particulars given above are true.
Note : Strike out whichever is inapplicable.
Date : ................ .
Signature/Thumb impression
of applicant.
B
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).
c The applicant has failed in the test.
(The details of deficiency to be listed out.)
Date~~~~~~~~

Signature of Testing Authority
Full name and designation
D Two specimen signatures of applicant:
Strike out whichever is inapplicable."
11. It is apparent from the Form prescribed under Rule 14 till
28.3.200 I, the aforesaid classification of vehicles remained the same As
provided in Section l 0(2) of the Act of 1988 for the first time transport
vehicle was inserted w.e.f. 28.3.2001 by deleting the existing classes,
E medium passenger and goods vehicle, heavy goods vehicle and heavy
passenger motor vehicles to bring in tune with Section 10(2)(e) to (h).
r'orm 4 has undergone other changes with respect to item 'a' motorcycle
without gear which was substituted vide GSR 684(E) on 5.1O.t999 w.e.f.
22.10.1999 and again substituted by GSR 76(E) dated 31.1.2000 w.e.f.
F 31.1.2000. With aforesaid changes brought about by notifications in
1989 and 2000 in Section I 0(2)(a) we are not concerned here. Amended
Form ·4' is extracted hereunder:
"FORM 4
[See Rule 14(1))
Form of Application for Licence to Drive a Motor Vehicle
G
To
The Licensing Authority
Space for
Passport size
photograph
H
MUKUND DEWANGAN v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. 1091
ETC. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

I apply for a licence to enable me to drive vehicles of the A
following description:-
(a) Motor cycle without gear
(b) Motor cycle with gear
(c) Invalid carriage
(d) Light Motor vehicle 8
(e) Transport vehicle
(t) Medium passenger motor vehicle
(*****] .
(i) Road roller
G) Motor vehicles of the following description:
c
Particulars to be furnished. by Applicant
I.Full Name ....................... .
2.Son/Wife/Daughter of'.········· ............................. ..
3.Permanent address ......................................... .
(Proof to be enclosed) .......................................... .
D
4.Temporary address/ Official address (if any) ................ ..
5.Date of birth ............................... .
(proof to be enclosed) ................................................ .
6. Educational qualification ................................. ..
7. Identification mark(s) !.. ......................... .
2 ......... ~ .................. . E
8. Optional
Blood Group
RH FACTOR
9. Have you previously held driving ................... ..
Licence? If so, give details.
10. Particulars and date of every ....... ; ................... ..
conviction which has been ordered to be
endorsed on any licence held by applicant
11. Have you been disqualified for .......................... .
obtaining a Licence to drive? If so,
for what reason? G
12. Have yon been subjected to a driving
test as to your fitness or ability
to drive a vehicle in respect of which
a licence to drive is applied for ?
If so, give the following details .............................. .
H
1092 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 3 S.C.R.

A Date of test Testing Authority Result of test
1.
2.
13. I enclose 3 copies of my recent (passport size
photograph) (where laminated card is used no photographs
B are required).
14. I enclose the learne1"s Licence No •..•........•••••• dated
•.•........• issued by Licensing Authority.
15. I enclose the Driving Certificate No ..••••••...•.. Dated
.....••...•.•... issued by ..•.....••..............
16. I have submitted along with my application for Learner's
C Licence the written consent of parent/guardian.
17. I have submitted along with the application for learner's
licence/I enclose the medical fitness certificate.
18. I am exempted from the medical test under rule 6 of
the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.
D 19. I am exempted from preliminary test under rule 11(2)
of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules. 1989.
20. I have paid the fee of Rs .....•••..•...
I hereby declare that to the best of my knowledge and
belief the particulars given above are true.
* Strike out whichever is inapplicable.
E
Date ..............•.... Signature/Thumb
impression of Applicant
Certificate of test of competence to drive
The applicant has passed the test prescribed under rule 15
of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules 1989. The test
F
conducted on (here enter the registration mark and
description of the vehicle) ••.•.•....••.•••..•.•..•.••......•.•• on (date)

The applicant has failed in the test.
(The details of the deficiency to be listed out)
G Date ......•........... Signature of Testing Authority
Full name & designation
Two specimen signatures of Applicant:
1.
2.
H Strike out whichever is inapplicable."
MUKUND DEWANGAN v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. 1093
ETC. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

12. Thus, as per Amendment of Section l 0 vide Act 54 of 1994, A
there is deletion of categories of medium goods vehicle, medium passenger
motor vehicle, heavy goods vehicle and heavy passenger motor vehicle
and these have been substituted by the classification "transport vehicle".
It is pertinent to note here that the definition and classification of light
motor vehicle in the Act remains intact as it existed. It is also apparent
8
from the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Amendment Act
No.54of1994 that the transport operators and members of public faced
inconvenience because of operation of some of the provisions of the Act
of 1988. It was intended for simplification of procedures and policy
liberalization and it became necessary due to introduction ofnewer type
of vehicles and faced increasing numbers of both personal and c
commercial vehicles in the country. Hence, it was intended to modify
and amplify certain definitions ofnew types of vehicles for simplification
of procedure for grant of driving licences as provided in para 4(a) and
(b) of the Statement of Objects and Reasons. The question is whether
intendment appears not to touch the classification oflight motor vehicle
which has to be understood in the light of the definition in section 2(21)
D
of the Act of 1988 and it was never inte11ded that the transport vehicles
oflight motor vehicle category should be taken out of the purview of the
existing classification of light motor vehicles and the trf!nsport vehicles
as inserted in section I 0 has to be understood in the l~ght of the
amendment brought about vide deletion of the provisions of medium E
goods vehicle, medium passenger motor vehicle, heavy goods vehicle
and heavy passenger motor vehicle. Thus, no change had been brought
about with respect to the transport vehicles of class oflight motor vehicle
as defined in section 2(21) of the Act of 1988.
13. To consider further on the issue, certain ru Jes and forms are F
also required to be referred to. Rule 8 provides for minimum educational
qualification for driving transport vehicles which is 8th standard. However
proviso makes it clear that the qualification of 8th standard shall not
apply in the case ofre1iewal of driving licence to drive a transport vehicle
and/or addition of another class.of transport vehicle to the driving licence
already held before the commencement of the Motor Vehicles Act, 2007. G
Rule 8 of the Rules of 1989 inserted on I 0.4.2007 is quoted below:
"8. Minimum educational qualification for driving transport
vehicles.- The minimum educational qualification in
respect of an applicant for obtaining a licence to drive a
transport vehicle shall be a pass in the eighth standard: H
1094 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 3 S.C.R.

A Provided that the minimum educational qualification
specified in this rule shall not apply in the case of -
(i) renewal of a driving licence to drive a transport vehicle
: or
(ii) addition of another class of transport vehicle to the
13 driving licence, already held before the commencement
of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Rules, 2007."
14. Earlier Rule 8 was omitted by GSR No.933(E) dated
28.10.1989 w.e.f. 28.10.1989. The Rule has been inserted in the year
2007 and it is provided that Eighth standard qualification will not apply in
(' the case of addition of another class of transpo1i vehicle to the driving
licence. Thus, it is clear that Rule 8 contemplates addition of transport
vehicle of other category than the existing one in the licence. Question
arises whether that refers to the addition to light motor vehicle's category,
and gross vehicle weight or the unladen weight of vehicle in section
2(21) does not exceed 7500 kgs. would remain a light motor vehicle.
D Section iO of the Act contains the provisions as to class of vehicles of
the transport vehicle and light motor vehicle separately. The question
arises whether the transport vehicle insertion in Section 10(2)(e) is
confined to the category of substitution made by deleting existing sections
10(2)(e), (f), (g) and (h) which were for medium goods vehicle, medium
passenger motor vehicle, heavy goods vehicle and heavy passenger motor
vehicle. and in case "transport vehicle" even of the weight of.light motor
vehicle is treated in one category under section 10(2)(e) in that case
whether any purpose would be left behind insertion of Rule 8 again in
the year 2007.
15. Ru le 16 provides for the .Form of driving Iicence. Same shall
I
be issued or renewed by licensing authority in Fo1m 6. Rule 16 and Form
6 are quoted below :
"16. Form of driving licence.-(1) Every driving licence
issued or renewed by a licensing authority shall be in Form
6.
(2) Where the licensing authority has the necessary
apparatus, [for the issue of a laminated card type or Smart
Card type driving licence, such card type or Smart Card
type driving licence, as may be specified in the Notification
issued by the concerned State Government or Union
1-1 Territory Administration] shall be in Form 7.
MUKUND DEWANGAN v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. 1095
ETC. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

(3) On and from the date of commencement of this sub~ A
rule, every driving licence issued or renewed by the
licensing authority~h.all be in Form 7.
(4) Every lnternatinnal Dri•;ing Permit issued by a licehsing
authority shall be h1 Form 6-A and shall be valid for a period
of not more than one year from tlie date of iss-ue, as the B
case may be, or till the validity of the driving licence,
whichever is earlier.
(5) The automobile associations authorised by the State
Government/ Union Territory Administration shall be
allowed to issue International Driving Permit to their own c
members as also others subject to counter-signature by
competent authority."
"FORM 6
[See Rule 16(1)J
(To be printed in book form of the size six centimete..S by
D
eight centimeters)
FORM OF DRIVING LICENCE
Name of the Licence holder .................•......••....•.
Son/wife/daughter of ............••..........•.•..•.•
[Passport size E
photograph]
Name to be written across the photograph ............... .-•.•
(Part of the seal and signature Specimen signature/
of the Licencing Authority Thumb impression of " F .
to be on the photo~raph the hold-er of the
and part on the driving licence) lict:nce .

Signature and designation
of the Licencing Authority
· 1. Driving Licence Number G
2. Date'of issue
3.Name ............... ··:· ... ...
~

4, Son /Wife/ Daughter of
5. Temporary address/ official
address (if any)
H
1096 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2016) 3 S.C.R.

A 6. Permanent address
7. Date of Birth
8. Educational Qualifications
9. Optional
_Blood Group
RH Factor
B
10. The holder of this licence is licenced
to drive throughout India vehicles of
the following descri1Jtion:-

Motor Cycle without gear
C Motor Cycle with gear
Invalid Carriage
Light Motor Vehicle
[Transport vehicle)
Medium passenger motor vehicle
D 11. A Motor vehicle of the following description :
The licence to drive a motor The licence to drive
vehicle other than transport transport vehicle is
vehicle is valid valid from ••.• to .•...
from •.•.... to ••.•...•.
E Name and designation of Signature and designation
!he Authority who of the Licencing Authority
conducted the driving test.
Authorisation to drive transport vehicle
Number............................ Date ..........•.•.•.
Authorised to drive transport vehicle with effect from
F
Badge Number •....••..•..•.....•.•.•.•.•..•.•
Signature •..•.•.•.
Designation of the licensing Authority
Name and designation of the authority who conducted the
G driving test.
Space for addition of other classes of vehicles
Number........................ Date •...•......••••
Also authorized to drive the following class or description
of motor vehicles:-
H
MUKUND DEWANGAN v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. 1097
ETC,JARUN MISHRA, J.)

Name and designation Signature and designation A
of the.Authority of Licencing Authority
who conducted
the drivin2 test.
Dated: ............ .. Signature and designation
of the Licencing Authority
B
Space for renewal of driving licence
The licence to drive motor The licence to drive
vehicles other than transport transport vehicles
vehicles is hereby renewed. is hereby renewed
c
From ........ to ........... . From ............ to .......... .

Signature of Licencing Si2nature of Licencing
Authority Authority
From ............ to ............ . From ............ to .•..•.......
D
Signature ofLicencing Signature of Licencing Authority
Authority
From ............. to .............. .
Signature of Licencing Authority
Space for endorsement b,Y Court E '·

Date Section and Fine or other Signature of the
Rule punishment endorsing
authority
.
1 2. 3 4
F

Space for endorsement by Iicensingh authority

Date Proceedings Disqualification Signature of the
number and period licensing authority G
date From to
1 2 3 4"

H
·1098 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 3 S.C.R.

A It is pertinent to mention that in the Form light motor vehicle and
transport vehicle are separately given.
16. Rule 17 of the Rules deals with the additional driving licence.
Same has to be applied for in Fonn S. Rule 17 and Form S read thus :
"17. Addition to drivin~ licence.- (1) An application for
B addition of another class of description of motor vehicle to
the driving licence shall be made in Form 8 to the licensing
authority and shall be accompanied by-
(a) an effective learner's licence and driving licence held
by the applicant;
c
(b) in the case of an application for addition of a transport
vehicle, the driving certificate in Form 5;

(c) I* * *I
(d) appropriate fee as specified in Rule 32.
D
(2) The provisions of sub-section (1), sub-section (3) and
sub-section (4) of Section 9 shall, insofar as may be, apply
in relation to an application under sub-section (1) as they
apply in relation to an application for the grant of a driving
licence."
E Form 8 as provided in Rule 17( 1) of the Rules reads as under:
"FORM 8
[Sec Rule 17(1)1

APPLICATION FOR THE ADDITION OF A NEW CLASS OF
F VEHICLE TO A DRIVING LICENCE
To
The Licensing Authority,

I, Shri/Smt./ Kumari ...... hereby apply for the addition of
the following class/classes of motor vehicles to the attached
G
licence:-
(a) Motor cycle without gear
(b) Motor cycle with gear
(c) Invalid carriages,
(d) Light motor vehicles,
H
MUKUND DEWANGAN v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. 1099
ETC. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

(e) Transport vehicle A
(f) Medium passenger motor vehicles
(g) xx x
(h) xx x
(i) Road rollers,
(j) Motor vehicle of the following description :
B
I enclose,
(a) a Medical Certificate in Form 1-A
(b) Learner's licence in Form 3,
(c) Driving licence in Form 6/7,
I hereby apply for the addition of the following :
(d) Driving Certificate in Form 5 if the application is to drive c
a transport vehicle,
(e) I have paid the fee of Rs ............................ ..
Dated: ........ Signature or thumb-impression
of the Applicant
D
CERTIFICATE OF TEST OF COMPETENCE TO DRIVE

The applicant has passed/failed in the test specified in
Rule 15 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. The
test was conducted on a .... (here enter description of
vehicles) on date .... E
Signature of Testing Anthority
Name & Designation"
17. Form 8 also separately provide the light motor vehicle and
transport vehicle. Question arises whether in Forms 4, 5 and 8, transport
vehicle has to be understood for the categories of vehicles for which F
substitution has been made in section I 0(2) by deleting the existing
provisions of section 10(2)(e), (t), (g) and (h). However the form still
contains the provision with respect to "medium passenger motor.
vehicles", notwithstanding the insertion of the changed classification of
the vehicles in section I 0(2) of the Act or it may be printer's omission to
delete? G

18. Rule 34 has also been referred to which deals with the trade
certificate. Rule 34(2) provides that separate application shall be made
for the classes of vehicles prescribed therein. Rule 34 is quoted below:
"34. Trade certificate.- (1) An application for the grant or
H
1100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS {2016] 3 S.C.R.

A renewal of a trade certificate shall be made in Form 16 and
shall be acc<1mpaniell by the appropriate fee as specified in
Rule 81.
(2) Separate applications shall b~ made for each of the
following classes of·vehicles, namely:-
B (a) motorcycle;
(b) invalid carriage;
(c) light motor vehicle;
(d) medium passenger motor vehicle;
(e) medium goods vehicle;
c (f) heavy passenger motor vehicle;
(g) heavy goods vehicle; .
(h) any other motor vehicle of a specified description."
Rule 34 also makes a distinction.between light motor vehicle,
medium passenger motor vehicle, medium goods vehicte, heavy passenger
motor vehicle and heavy goods vehicle. As per Rule 126 of the Rules,
D proto-type of every motor vehicle is subject to test by the Vehicle
Resear_ch & Development Establishment of the Ministry of Defence of
the Government oflndia or Automotive Research Association oflndia.
Testing Agency has to conduct test as provided in Rule 126A to verify
whether these vehicles conform to the provisions of the Rules made
E under section 110 of the Act. All the relevant information has to be
inserted as per section 41 of the Act in the registration particulars as
may be prescribed by the Central Government. Application for registration
of motor vehicle has to be made in Form 20, Class of vehicle, gross
vehicle weight as well as unladen weight are to be mentioned.
F 19. Rule 31 of the Rules contains a syllabus for imparting
instructions in driving of motor vehicles in schools or establishments.
That syllabus is divided in parts A to K. Part A deals with driving theory-
1. B- Traffic education-I. C-light vehicles driving practice. D- Vehicle
mechanism and repairs. E-Medium and heavy vehicle driving. F- Traffic
education-II. G- Public relations for drivers. H-Heavy vehicle driving
G practice. I-Fire hazards. J- Vehicle maintenance. K- First-aid.
·20. It is apparent from the syllabus that there is a separate syllabus
for light motor vehicle and for medium and heavy vehicle driving practice.
No separate syllabus has been provided for transport vehicles. They are
included in the aforesaid categories. Thus, it appears that as per the
H weight of the vehicles, the syllabus has been provided and different
MUKUND DEWAN GAN v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. 1101
ETC. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

teaching is prescribed as per different weights of the vehicles. A driving A
licence has to be issued as per Rule 16 in Forni 6. Form 6 also separately
provides for light motor vehicle, transport vehicle.
21. The Central Government, inter alia, has the power to frame
the rules provided under section 27 of the Act, regarding minimum
qualification, regarding forms and contents of the licences referred to in B
sub-section (1) of section 10 and providing for authority to grant licences
and other matters as provided in section 27. State Government is enjoined
to maintain a register of motor vehicles under Rt1le 75 as provided in
Form 41 which includes gross vehicle weight, unladen weight etc. Thus
it is clear that the scheme of the Act, Rules and the Forms emphasise .
the gross vehicle weight and unladen weight which is required to be C
mentioned specifically in the State registration particulars.etc. so as to
ascertain the class of vehicle whether it is light, medium or heavy etc.
22. In Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kokilaben Chandravadan
& Ors. ( 1987) 2 SCC 654, it was held that in order to consider the
intention of the Legislature in the course of interpretation, motive and D
philosophy of the relevant provisions keeping in mind the goals to be·
achieved by enacting the sa1:ne, has to be taken into consideration. It
was observed thus : ·
"12. The defence built on the exclusion clause cannot
succeed for three reasons, viz.: E

(1) On a true interpretation of the relevant claus'e
whiCh interpretation is at peace with the· conscience of
Section 96, the condition excluding driving by a person
not duly licensed is not absolute and the promisor is
absolved once it is shown that he has done everything in F
his power to keep, honour and fulfil the promise and he
himself is not guilty of a deliberate breach.
(2) Even if it is treated as an absolute promise, there
is substantial compliance therewith upon an express or
implied mandate being given to the licensed driver not G
. to allow the vehicle to be left unattended so that it hap~
pens to be driven by an, unlicensed driver. ·
(3) The exclusion. clause has to be "read down" in
order that it is not at war with the "main purpose" of the
provisions ena~ted. for the protection of victims of H
1102 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 3 S.C.R.

A accidents so that the promisor is exculpated when he
does everything in his power .to keep the promise.
13. In order to divine the intention of the legislature in the
course of interpretation of the relevant provisions there -
can scari:ely be a better test than that of probing into the
B motive and philosophy of the relevant provisions keeping
in mind the goals to be achieved by enacting the same.
Ordinarily it is not the concern of the legislature whether
the owner of the vehicle insures his vehicle or not. If the
vehicle is not insured any legal liability arising on account
of third party risk will have to be borne by the owner of the
c vehicle. Why then has the legislature insisted on a person
using a motor vehicle in a public place to insure against
third party risk by enacting Section 94.? Surely the obligation
has not been imposed in order to promote the business of
the insurers engaged in the business of automobile
D insurance. The provision has been inserted in order to
protect the members of the community travelling in
_vehicles or using the roads from the risk attendant upon
.the user of motor vehicles on the roads. The law may provide
·for compensation to victims of the accidents who sustai_n
injuries in the course of an automobile accident or
E compensation to the dependants of the victims in the case
of a fatal accident. However, such protection would remain
a protection on paper unless there is a guarantee that the
compensation awarded by the courts would be recoverable
from ·the persons held liable for the consequences of the
F accident. A court can only pass an award or a decree. It
cannot ensure that such an award or decree results in the
amount awarded being actually recovered, from the person
held liable who may not have the resources. The exercise
undertaken by the law courts would then be an exercise in
futility. And the outcome of the legal proceedings which by
the very nature of things involve the time cost and money
cost invested from the scarce resources of the community
would make a mockery of the injured victims, or the
dependants of the deceased victim of the accident, who
themselves are obliged to incur not i'nconsiderable
H expenditure of time, money and energy in litigation. To
MUKUND DEWANGAN v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. 1103
ETC. [ARUN MISHRA. J.]

overcome this ugly situation the legislature has made it A
obligatory that no motor vehicle shall be used ur1less a third
party insurance is in force. To use the vehicle without the
requisite third party insurance being in' force is a penal
offence (Section 94 of the Motor Vehicles Act). The
legislature was also faced with another problem. The
B
insurance policy might provide for liability walled in by
conditions which may be specified in the contract of policy.
In order to make the protection real, the legislature has
also provided that the judgment obtained shall not be
defeated by the incorporation of exclusion clauses other
than those authorised by Section 96 and by providing that c
except and save to the extent permitted by Section 96 it
will be the obligation of the insurance company to satisfy
the judgment obtained against the persons insured against
third party risk (vide Section 96). In other words, the
legislature has insisted and made it incumbent on the user
D
of a motor vehicle to be armed with an insurance policy
covering third party risks which is in conformity with the
provisions .enacted by the legislature. It is so provided in
order to ensure that the injured victims of automobile
accidents or the dependants of the victims of fatal accidents
are really compensated in terms of money and not in terms E
of promise. Such a benign provision enacted by the
legislature having regard to the fact that in the modern age
the use of motor vehicles notwithstanding the attendant
hazards, has become an inescapable fact of life, has to be
interpreted in a meaningful manner which serves rather
F
than defeats the purpose of the legislation. The provision
has therefore to be interpreted in the twilight of the aforesaid
perspective."
14. Section 96(2)(h)(ii) extends immunity to the insuran~e
company ifa breach is committed of the condition excluding
driving by a named person or persons or by any person who G
is not /111/y licensed, or by any person who has been
disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence during
the period of disqualification. The expression "breach" is
of great significance. The dictionai:y meaning of "breach"
is "infringement or violation of a promise or obligation" H
1104 SUPREMI;: COURT REPORTS [2016] 3 S.C.R.

A (See Collins English Dictionary). It is therefore abundantly
clear that the insurer will have ta establish that the insured
is guilty of an infringement or violation of a promise that a
person who is duly licensed will have to be in charge of the
vehicle. The very concept of infringement or violation of
the promise that the expression "breach" carries within
B
itself induces an inference that the violation or infringement
on the part of the promisor must be a wilful infringement or
violation. If the insured is not at all at fault and has not
done anything he should not have done or is not amiss in
any respect how can it be conscientiously posited that he
c has committed a breach? It is only when the insured himself
places the vehicle in charge of a person who does not hold
a driving licence, that it can be said that he is "guilty" of
the breach of the promise that the vehicle will be driven by
a licensed driver. It must be established by the insurance
company that the breach was on the part of the insured and
D that it was the insured who was guilty of violating the
promise or infringement of the contract. Unless the insured
is at fault and is guilty of a breach the insurer cannot escape
from the obligation to indemnify the insured and successfully
contend that he is exonerated having regard to the fact that
E the promisor (the insured) committed a breach of his
promise. Not w,hen some mishap occurs by some
mischance. When the insured has done everything within
his power inasmuch as he has engaged a licensed driver
and has placed the vehicle in charge of a licensed driver,
with the express or implied mandate to drive himself it
F cannot be said that the insured is guilty of any breach. And
it is only in i;ase of a breach or a violation of the promise on
the part of the insured that the insurer can hide under the
umbr~lla of the exclusion clause. In a way the question is
as to whether the promise made by the insured is anI
G absolute promise or whether he is exculpated on the basis
of some legal doctrine. The discussion made in para 239 of
Breach of Contract by Carter (1984 Edn.) under the head
Proof of Breach, gives an inkling of this dimension of the
matter. In the present case even if the promise were to be
treated as an absolute promise the grounds for exculpation
H can be found from Section 84 of the Act which reads thus:
MUKUND DEWANGAN v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. 1105
ETC. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

"84. Stationary vehicles-No person driving or in charge A
of a motor vehicle shall cause or allow the vehicle to
remain stationary in any public place, unless there is in .
the driver's seat a person duly licensed to drive the
vehicle or unless the mechanism has been stopped and
a brake or brakes applied or such other measure taken
8
as to ensure that the vehicle cannot accidentally be put
in motion in the absence of the driver."
In view of this provision apart from the implied mandate to
the licensed driver not to place an unlicensed person in
charge of the vehicle, there is also a statutory obligation
on the said person not to leave the vehicle unattended and
c
not to place it in charge of an unlicensed driver. What is
prohibited by law must be treated as a mandate to the
employee and should be.considered sufficient in the eye of
law for excusing non-compliance with the conditions. It
cannot therefore in any case be considered as a breach on D
the part of the insured. To construe the provision differently
would be to rewrite th~ provision by engrafting a rider to
the effect that in the event of the motor vehicle happening
to be driven by an unlicensed person, regardless of the
circumstances in which such a contingency occurs, the
E
insured will not be liable under the contract of insurance.
It needs to be emphasised that it is not the contract of
insurance which is being interpreted. It is the statutory
provision defining the conditions of exemption which is
being interpreted. These must therefore be interpreted in
the spirit in which the same have been enacted accompanied F
by an anxiety to. ensure that the protection is not nullified
by the backward looking interpretation which serves to
defeat the provision rather than to fulfil its life-aim. To do
otherwise would amount to nullifying the benevolent
provision by reading it with a non-benevolent eye and with
a mind not tuned to the purpose and philosophy of the G
legislation without being informed of the true goals sought
to be achieved. What the legislature has given, the Court
cannot deprive of by way of an exercise in interpretation
when the view which renders the provision potent is equally
plausible as the one which renders the provision impotent. H
1106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 3 S.C .R.

A In fact it appears that the former view is more plausible
apart from the fact that it is more desirable. When the option
is between opting for a view which will relieve the distress
and misery of the victims of accidents or their dependants
on the one hand and the equally plausible view which will
reduce the profitability of the insurer in regard to the
B
occupational hazard undertaken by him by way of business.
activity, there is hardly any choice. The Court cannot but
opt for the former view. Even if one were to make a strictly
doctrinaire approach, the very same conclusion would
emerge in obeisance to the doctrine of "reading down" the
c exclusion clause in the light of the "main purpose" of the
provision so that the "exclusion clause" does not cross
swords with the "mai11 purpose" highlighted earlier. The
effort must be to harmonize the two instead of allowing the
exclusion clause to snipe successfully at the main purpose.
This theory which needs no support is supported by
D
Carter's "Breach of Contract" vide paragraph 251. To quote:
"Notwithstanding the general ability of contracting
parties to agree to exclusion clauses which operate to
define obligations there exists a rule, usually referred
to as the "main purpose rule", which may limit the
E application of wide exclusion clauses defining a
promisor's contractual obligations. For example, in Glynn
v. MarKetso11 & Co (1'893 AC 351, 357, Lord Halsbury,
L.C. stated:
It seems to me that in construing this document, which
F is a contract of carriage between the parties, one must
in the first instance look at the whole instrument and
not at one part of it only. Looking at the whole
instrument, and seeing what one must regard ... as
its main purpose, one must reject words, indeed whole
G provisions, if they are inconsistent with what one
assumes to be the main purpose of the contract.'
Although this rule played a role in the development of the
doctrine of fundamental breach, the continued validity of
the rule was acknowledged when the doctrine was rejected
by the House of Lords in Suissee At/antique Societe d'
H
MUKUND DEWANGAN v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. 1107
ETC. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

Armeme11t Maritime S.A. v. N. V. Rotterdamsclte Ko/e11 A
Ce11trale (1967) 1 AC 361, 393, 412-413, 427-428, 430.
Accordingly, wide exclusion clauses will be read down to tile
extent to which they are inconsistent with the main purpose,
or object of tile contract.
(emphasis supplied)"
B
23. A 3-Judge Bench of this Court in Sohan Lal Passi v. P. Sesh
Reddy & Ors. ( 1996) 5 SCC 21 examined the correctness of the
aforesaid view in Skandia's case (supra) and has laid down thus:
"12 .•.• According to us, Section 96(2)(b)(ii) should not be
interpreted in a technical manner. Sub-section (2) of Section c
96 only enables the insurance company to defend itself in
respect of the liability to pay compensation on any of the
grounds mentioned in sub-section (2) including that there
has been a contravention of the condition excluding the
vehicle being driven by any person who is not duly licensed.
This bar on the face of it operates on the person insured. If D
the person who has got the vehicle insured has allowed the
vehicle to be driven by a person who is not duly licensed
then only that clause shall be attracted. In a case where the
person who has got insured the vehicle with the insurance
company, has appointed a duly licensed driver and if the
E
accident takes place when the vehicle is being driven by a
person not duly licensed on the basis of the authority of the
driver duly authorised to drive the vehicle whether the
insurance company in that event shall be absolved from its
liability? The expression 'breach' occurring in Section
96(2)(b) means infringement or violation of a promise or F
obligation. As such the insurance company will have to
establish that the insured was guilty of an infringement or
violation of a promise. The insurer has also to satisfy the
Tribunal or the Court that such violation or infringement
on the part of the insured was wilful. If the insured has
G
taken all precautions by appointing a duly ficensed driver
to drive the vehicle in que·stion and it has not been
established that it was the insured who allowed the vehicle
to be ·driven by a person not duly licensed, then the
insurance company cannot repudiate its statutory liability
under sub-section (1) of Section 96 ..... " H
1108 SUPREME COURT REPORTS . [2016] 3 S.C.R.

A 24. ft is relevant to note the various decisions rendered by this
Court. In Ashok Gangadhar Maratha v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd
(1999) 6 SCC 620, this Court considered the definition of light motor
vehicle and held thus:
"10. The definition of "light motor vehicle" as given in
B clause (21) of Section 2 of the Act can apply only to a "light
goods vehicle" or a "light transport vehicle". A "light motor
vehicle" otherwise has to be covered by the definition of
"motor vehicle" or "vehicle" as given in clj\use (28) of
Section 2 of the Act. A light motor vehicle cannot always
mean a light goods carriage. Light motor vehicle can be a
c non-transport vehicle as well."
25. In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Zaharulnisha & Ors.
(2008) 12 SCC 385 this Court has referred to the decision in National
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh (2004) 3 SCC 297 to the effect
that if a person has been given a licence for a particular type of vehicle
D he cannot be said to have no licence for driving another type of vehicle
which is of the same category but of a different type. As for example
when a person is granted a licence for driving a light motor vehicle he
can drive either a car or a jeep and it is not necessary that he must have
driving licence both for car and jeep separately. This Court has laid
down that since the driver was having licence to drive heavy motor
E vehicle but at the time of accident was driving a scooter which is a
totally different class of vehicle, the act was held to be in violation of
Section 10(2) of the MY Act. The relevant provisions read thus:
"18. A three-Jtidge Bench of this Court in National
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singlt (2004) 3 SCC 297 has
F extensively dealt with the meaning, application and
interpretation of various provisions, including Sections
3(2), 4(3), 10(2) and 149 of the MV Act. In para 47 of the
judgment, the learned Judges have held that if a person
has been given a licence for a particular type of vehicle as
specified therein, he cannot be said to have no licence for
G
driving another type of vehicle which is of the same category
but of different type. As for example, when a person is
granted a licence for driving a light motor vehicle he can
drive either a car or a jeep and it is not necessary that he
must have driving licence. both for car and jeep separately.
H In para 48, it is held as under: (SCC pp. 324-25)
MUKUND DEWANGAN v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. 1109
ETC. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

"48. Furthermore, the insurance compa~y with a view A
to avoid its liabilities is not only required to show that
the conditions laid down under Section 149(2)(a) or (b)
are satisfied but is further required to establish that there
has been a breach on the part of the insured. By reason
of the provisions contained in the 1988 Act, a more
B
extensive remedy has been conferred upon those who
have obtained judgment against the user of a vehicle
and after a certificate of insurance is delivered in terms
of Section 147(3). After a third party has obtained_ a
judgment against any. person insured by the policy in
respect of a liability required to be covered by Section c
145, the same must be satisfied by the insurer,
notwithstanding that the insurer may be entitled to avoid
or to cancel the policy or may in fact have done so. The
same obligation applies in respect of a judgment against
a person not insured by the policy in respect of such a
D
liability, but who would have been covered if the policy
had covered the liability of all persons, except that in
respect of liability for death or bodily injury."
19. The _judgment (in Swaran Singh case) proceeds to hold
· that under the MV Act, holding of a valid driving licence is
one of the conditions of the contract !)f insurance. Driving E
of a vehicle without a valid licence is an offence. However,
the question herein is whether a third party involved in an
accident is entitled to the amount of compensation granted
by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal although the driver
of the vehicle at the relevant time might not have had a F
valid driving licence but would be entitled to recover the
same from the owner or driver thereof. It is trite that where
the insurers, relying upon the provisions of violatioi:i of law
by the assured, take an exception to pay the assured or a
third party, they must prove a wilful violation of the law by
the assured. In some cases, violation of criminal law, G
particularly violation of the provisions of the MV Act, may
result in absolving the insurers but, the same may not
necessarily hold good in the case of a third party. In any
event, the exception applies only to acts done intentionally
or "so recklessly as to denote that the assured did not care H
1110 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 3 S.C.R.

A what the consequences of his act might be". The provisions
of sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 149 of the MV Act
may be considered as to the liability of the insurer to satisfy
the decree at the first instance. The liability of the insurer
is a statutory one. The liabilitv of the insurer to satisfy the
decree passed in favour .,,- .:. third party is also statutory.
B
20. The learned Judges having considered the entire
material and relevant provisions of the MV Act and conflict
of decisions of various High Courts and this Court on the
question of defences available to the insurance companies
in defending the claims of the victims of the accident arising
c due to the harsh and negligent driving of the vehicle which
is insured with the insurance companies, proceeded to
record the following summary of findings: (Swaran Singh
case, sec pp. 341-42, para 110)
"110. (i) Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
D providing compulsory insurance of vehicles against third-
party risks is a social welfare legislation to extend relief
by compensation to victims of accidents caused by use
of motor vehicles. The provisions of compulsory
insurance coverage of all vehicles are with this paramount
E object and the provisions of the Act have to be so
interpreted as to effectuate the said object.
(ii) An insurer is entitled to raise a defence in a claim
petition filed under Section 163-A or Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act; 1988 inter alia in terms of Section
F 149(2)(a)(ii) of the said Act.
(iii) The breach of policy condition e.g. disqualifica-
tion of the driver or invalid driving licence of the driver,
as contained in sub-section (2)(a)(ii) of Section 14?, has
to be proved to have been committed by the insured for
avoiding liability by the insurer. Mere absence, fake or
G
invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver
for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves
defences available to the insurer against either the in-
sured or the third parties. To avoid its liability towards
the insured, the .insurer has to prove that the insured
H was guilty ·of negligence and failed to exercise reason-
MUKUND DEWANGAN v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE;: CO. LTD. 1111
ETC. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

able care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the A
p.olicy regarding use of vehicles by duly licensed driver
or onerwho was not disqualified to drive at the relevant
time.
(iv) Insurance companies, however, with a view to
avoid their liability must not only establish the available B
defence(s) raised in the· said proceedings but must also
establish 'breach' on the part of the .owner of the ve-
hicle; the burden of proof wherefor would be on them.
(v) The court cannot lay down any criteria as to how the
said burden would be dischargJd, inasmuch as the same C
would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each
case.
(vi) Even where the insurer is able to prove breach on
the part of the insured concerning the policy' condition
regarding holding of a valid licence by the driver or his D
qualification to drive during the rehwant period, the
insurer would not be allowed to avoid its liability towards·
the insured unless the said breach or breaches on the.
condition of driving licence is/are so fundamental as are
found to have contributed to the cause of the accident.
The Tribunals in interpreting the policy conditions would E
apply "the rule of main purpose" and the concept of
..fundamental breach" to allow defences available to the
insured under Section 149(2) of the Act.
(vii) The question as to whether the owner has taken
reasonable care to find out as to whether the driving F
licence produ'ced by the driver, (a fake one or otherwise),
does not fulfil the requirements of law or not will have to
be determined in each case.
(viii) If a vehicle at the time of accident was driven by a
person having a learner's licence, the insurance G
companies would be liable to satisfy the decree.
(ix) The Claims Tribunal constituted under Section 165
read with Section 168 is empowered to adjudicate all
claims in respect of the accident!! involving death or of
bodily injury or damage to property of third party arising H
1112 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 3 S.C.R.

A in use of motor vehicle. The said power of the Tribunal
is not restricted to decide the claims inter se between
the claimant or claimants on one side and the insured,
insurer and driver on the other. In the course of
adjudicating the claim for compensation and to decide
the availability of defence or defences to the insurer, the
B
Tribunal has necessarily the power and jurisdiction to
decide disputes inter se between the insurer and the
insured. The decision rendered on the claims and
disputes inter sc between the insurer and insured in the
course of adjudication of claim for compensation by the
c claimants and the award made thereon is enforceable
and executable in the same manner as provided in Section
174 of the Act for enforcement and execution of the award
in favour of the claimants.
(x) Where on adjudication of the claim under the Act the
iJ
Tribunal arrives at a conclusion that the insurer has
satisfactorily proved its defence in accordance with the
provisions of Section 149(2) read with snb-section (7),
as interpreted by this Court above, the Tribunal can
direct that the insurer is liable to be reimbursed by the
insured for the compensation and other amounts which
E it has been compelled to pay to the third party under the
award of the Tribunal. Such determination of claim by
the Tribunal will be enforceable and the money found
due to the insurer from the insured will be recoverable
on a certificl}te issued by the Tribunal to the Collector
in the same manner under Section 174 of the Act as
arrears of land revenue. The certificate will be issued
for the recovery as arrears of land rcvennc only if, as
required by sub-section (3) of Section 168 of the Act the
insured fails to deposit the amount awarded in favour of
the insurer within thirty days from the date of
announcement of the award by the Tribunal.
(xi) The provisions contained in sub-section (4) with the
proviso thereunder and sub-section (5) which are
intended to cover specified contingencies mentioned
therein to enable the insurer to recover the amount paid
H under the l'Ontract of insurance on behalf of the insured
MUKUND DEWANGAN v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. 1113
ETC. [ARUN MISHRA, J.)

can be taken recourse to by the Tribunal and be extended A
to the claims and defences of the insurer against the
insured by relegating them to the remedy before regular
court in cases where on given facts and circumstances
adjudication of their claims inter se might delay the
adjudication of the claims of the victims."
8
21. In the light of the above settled proposition of law, the
appellant Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay
the amount of compensation to the claimants for the cause
of death of Shukurullah in road accident which had occurred
due to rash and negligent driving of scooter by Ram Surat
who admittedly had no valid and effective licence to drive
c
the vehicle on the day of accident. The scooterist was
possessing a driving licence of driving HMV and he was
driving a totally different class of vehicle, which act of his is
in violation of Section 10(2) of the MV Act."
26. In Nell' India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Prabhu Lal (2008) I D
SCC 696 this Court considered the question of driving a transport vehicle
by a driver having valid licence to ply only light motor vehicle, no
endorsement was made on the licence enabling the driver to drive transport
vehicle. A two Judge Bench of this Court has laid down that the owner
of the said vehicle cannot claim indemnification in such circumstances E
from the insurer. It has been held that goods carrier will be a transport
vehicle. The accident took place on 17.4.1998. The vehicle involved
was Tata 709. The District Forum held it to be a goods carrier and
covered by transport vehicle whereas the State Commission held that it
was a light motor vehicle relying on the gross weight of the vehicle. This
Cour' ii id rfown that the said Commission was wrong in reversing the F
fr · · .· .ii the District Forum. This Court has considered the question

·38. We find considerable force in the submission of the
learned counsel for the Insurance Company. We also find
that the District Forum considered the question in its proper G
perspective and held that the vehicle driven by Ram Narain
was covered by the category of transport vehicle under
Clause (47) of Section 2 of the Act. Section 3, therefore,
required the driver to have an endorsement which would
entitle him to ply such vehicle. It is not even the case of H
1114 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 3 S.C.R.

A · the complainant that there was such endorsement and Ram
Narain was allowed to ply transport vehicle. On the contrary,
the case c:if the complainant was that it was Mohd. Julfikar
who was driving the vehicle. To us, therefore, the District
Forum· was right in holding that Ram Narain could not have
driven the vehicle in question.
B
39. The learned counsel for the complainant, however,
heavily relied upon As/wk Gangalflutr (1999) 6 SCC 620.
In that case, the appellant was the owner of a truck, light
motor vehicle, which was insured with the respondent
Insurance Co.mpany. The vehicle !Det with an accident and
c a claim was lodged by the complainant before the Consumer
Commission. It was contended by the Insurance Company
that the truck was a~goods, carriage or a transport vehicle
and since the driv'erofthetruck was holding a driving licence
issued in Form 6 to drive light motor v~hicle only, he was
D not authorised to drive transport vehicle as there was no
endorsement on his driving licence authorising him to drive
such transport vehicle. The aggrieved complainant
approached this Court. Allowing the .appeal and setting
aside the order passed by the Commission, this Court held
that the driver of the vehicle was holding a valid driving
E licence for driving a light motor vehicle and there was no ·
material on record to show that he was disqµalified from
holding an effective valid licence at the time of aceident. In
view of those facts, the Court held that the policy did not
insist on the driver to have a~licence to drive a transport
F \rehicle by obtaining a specific endorsement. Considering
the definition of "light motor vehicle" as. given in Clause
(21) of Section 2 of the Act, this Court held that such light
motor vehicle (LMV) cannot always mean a light goods
carriage. A light..m.g!9r vehicle (LMV) can be a non-
. "'- transport vehicle as well. The Court proceeded to observe
' G that since there was neither a pleading nor a permit
produced on.record, th~ vehicle remained as a light motor
vehicle. And though it can be said to have been designed
to b~ used as a transport vehicle or a goods carriage, it
. could not be so held on account of statutory prohibition
H contained in Section 66 of the Act to be a transport vehicle.
MUKUND DEWANGAN v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. 1115
'ETC. [ARUN MISHRA, J.] .·

It was, therefore, held that the Commission was not right A
in rejecting the claim of the claimant. Accordingly this Court
set aside the order passed by the Commission and directed
the Insurance Company to pay compensation to the
complainant.
40. It is no doubt true that in Ashok Gangadhar (supra) in
splte of the fact that the driver ·.was holding valid driving
licence to ply light motor vehicle (LMV), this Court n'pheld
the claim .and ordered the Insurance Company to pay
compensation. But, in. our considered opinion, the learned
counsel for the Insurance Company is right in .submitting
that it was because of the fact that" there was neither
c
pleading nor proof as regards the permit issued by the
Transport Authority. In absence of pleading and proof, this
Court held that, it could not be said that the driver had no
valid licence to ply the vehicle which met with an accident
and he could not be deprived of the compensation. This is D
clear if one reads para 11 of the judgment, which reads thus:
(SCC p. 626)
"11. To reiterate, since a velticle cannot be used as a
transport vehicle on a public road unless tltere is a permit·
issued by tire Regional Transport Autltority for tit at purpose. E
J'
and since in tlte Instant case iliere is neither a p(eading to
tltat effect by any party nor is tltere any permit on record,
tlte velticle in.question would reinain a Jig/it motor vef1icle.
Th~Jespondent also does n~t say that any permit was
granted to the appellant for" plying the vehicle as a
transport vehicle under Section 66 of the Act. Moreover, F
on the date of the accident, the vehicle was not. carrying
· any goods- and though it could be said to-Y1ave ·been ..
designed to be used as a transport vehicle or a goods
carrier, it cannot be SO held OD account of the statutory ,
prohibition contained in Section 66 of the.Act." . G
(emphasis supplied) · ·
41. In our judgment, As/wk Gangadl1ar (supra) did not lay
down that the driver holding licence to drive a light motor
vehicle need not have an endorsement to drive transport
vehicle ;tnd yet he can drive such vehicle. ·u was on the H
1116 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 3 S.C.R.

A peculiar facts of the case, as the Insurance Company neither
pleaded nor proved that the vehicle was transport vehicle
by placing on record the permit issued by the Transport
Authority that the Insurance Company was held liable.
42. In the present case, all the facts were before the District
B Forum. It considered the assertion of the complainant and
defence of the Insurance Company in the light of the
relevant documentary evidence and held that it was
established that the vehicle which met with an accident was
a "transport vehicle". Ram Narain was having a licence to
drive light motor vehicle only and there was no
c endorsement as required by Section 3 of the Act read with
Rule 16 of the Rules and Form 6. In view of necessary
documents on record, the Insurance Company was right in
submitting that Ashok Gangadhar (supra) does not apply
to the case on hand and the Insurance Company was not
D liable."
27. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Roshanben
Rahemansha Fakir & Am: (2008) 8 SCC 253 the driver was holder of
a licence to drive a three-wheeler. This Court noted that the licence was
not meant to be used to drive a transport vehicle. The vehicle involved
E was an autorickshaw delivery van and was a goods carrier. Contention
was raised that the driver of the vehicle was not holder ofa legal and
valid licence. Question arose whether driver was holding a licence to
drive a transport vehicle. This Court held thus :
"10. Section 10 of the Act provides for classes of the
F driving licence. Different classes of vehicle have been
defined in different provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.
The "transport vehicle" is defined in Section 2(47) of the
Act to mean a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an
educational institution bus or a private service vehicle. We
have noticed hereinbefore the provisions of sub-section (4)
G of Section 41. We have also noticed the notification issued
by the Central Government in this behalf. The said
notification clearly postulates that a three-wheeled vehicle
for transport of passengers or goods comes within the
purview or" Class 5 of the Table appended thereto. The
licence granted in favour of the said Salim Amadbhai goes
H
MUKUND DEWANGAN v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD J J 17
ETC. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

to show that the same was granted for a vehicle other than A
the transpoi;t vehicle. lt was valid from 13.5.2004 to
12.5.2024. Section 14(2)(a) provides that a driving licence
issued or renewed under the Act shall, in case of a lkence
to drive a transport vehicle will be effective for a p<'l'iod of
three years whereas in the case of any other vehicle it can
be issued or renewed for a period of 20 years from the date
ofissuance or renewal. The fact that the licence was granted
for a period of 20 years, thus, clearly shows that Salim
Amadbhai, driver of the vehicle, was not granted a valid
driving licence for driving a transport vehicle.
xxxxx c
13. From the discussions made hereinbefore, it is evident
that the driver of the vehicle was not holding an effective
licence. Possession of an effective licence is necessary in
terms of Section 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act."
D
28.. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. i: Annappa !rappa Nesaria
alias Nesaragi & Ors. (2008) 3 SCC 464, a Division Bench of this
Court has considered the question with respect to an accident which
took place on 9.12.1999 involving a Matador va11, a "goods carriage"
vehicle. The driver was holding a licence to drive light motor vehicle.
Submission was raised before this Court that "light motor vehicle" cannot E
be a transport vehicle. Forms 4 and 6 were also referred along with
Ru Jes 14 and 16 of the 1989 Rules. After referring to Form 4 as it has
been amended w.e.f. 28.3.200 I, this Co mt has held that transport vehicle
has been substituted for "medium goods vehicle" anci "heavy goods
vehicle'', and continued at the relevant time, to cover both "light passenger F
carriage vehicle" and "light goods carriage vehicle". The driver who
had a valid licence to drive a li$ht motor vehicle, therefore, was authorized
to drive a light goods vehicle as well. This Court has laid down thus:
"20. From what has been noticed hereinbefore, it is evident
that "transport vehicle" has now been substituted for G
"medium goods vehicle" and "heavy goods vehicle". The
light motor vehicle continued, at the relevan! point of time
to cover both "light passenger carriage vehicle" and "light
goods carriage vehicle". A driver who had a valid licence
to drive a light motor vehicle, therefore, was authorized to
drive a light goods vehicle a~ well. H
1118 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 3 S.C.R.

A 21. The amendments carried out in the Rules having a
prospective operation, the licence held by the driver of the
vehicle in question cannot be said to be invalid iii law."
29. Thus, this Court has opined that prior to the amendment made
in the form in 200 I a person holding a licence to drive "light motor vehicle"
B could have driven "light passenger carriage vehicle''. and "light goods
carriage vehicle" also.
30. In Oriental Insuranc<; Co. Ltd. v. Angad Kol & Ors. (2009)
11 SCC 356, this Court has considered the decision in National
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Annappa Jrappa Nesaria (supra) and Prabhu
c Lal (supra). The accident in the said case took place on 31.10.2004. A
mini door auto dashed against the insured. Question aros.e whether the
nriverwas not having an effective driving licence to drive "goods carriage
vehicle". Driver was holding a licence to drive motor-cycle and light
motor vehicle. Licence was granted for a period of20 years. Therefore,
this Court presumed that it was meant for the purpose of a vehicle other
D than a transport vehicle. This Court observed thus :
"21. .Licence having been granted for a period of 20 years,
a presumption, therefore, arises that it was meant for the
purpose of a vehicle other than a transport vehicle. Had
the driving licence been granted for transport vehicle, the
E tenure thereof could not have exceeded to three years."
31. This Court observed that the grant of licence to drive transport
vehicle became effective from 28.3.2001 i.e. date on which the form
was amended and held that the vehicle was a "goods vehicle" as such
the driver did not hold a valid driving licence for driving a "goods vehicle".
F
32. ~·In S.Iyyapan v. United India Insurance Co. (2013) 7 SCC
62, this Court has considered the decisions in AshokGangadhar (supra),
Annappa Irappa Nesaria (supra), Prabhu Lal (supra) and other
decisions and laid down thus:
"18. In the instant case, admittedly the driver was holding
G
a valid driving licence to drive light motor vehicle. There
is no dispute that the motor vehicle in qu~stion, by which
accident took place, was Mahindra Maxi Cab. Merely
because the driver did not get any endorsement in the
driving licence to drive Mahindra Maxi Cab, which is a light
H motor vehicle, the High Court has committed grave error
MUKUND DEWANGAN v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. 1119
ETC. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

of law in holding that the insurer is not liable to pay A
compensation because the drivei: was not holding the
licence to drive the commercial vehicle. The impugned
judgment is, therefore, liable to. be set aside."
33. This Court in Ku/want Singh & Ors. v. Oriental Insurance
Co. Ltd. (2015) 2 SCC 186; referring to the decisions of this Court in B
S. Jyyapan (supra) and Annappa Irappa Nesaria (supra) has laid down
that when one driver is holding a licence to drive light motor vehicle, he
can drive commercial vehicle of that category: This Court has considered.
the question thus : ·
· "8. We find that the judgments relied upon cover the issue C
in favour of the appellants. In Annappa Irappa Nesaria
(2008) 3 SCC 464, this Court referred to the provisions of
Sections 2(21) and (23) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
which are definitions of "light motor vehict.e" and "medium
goods vehicle" respectively and the rules prescribing the .
· forms for the licence i.e. Rule 14 and Form 4. It was D
concluded: (SCC p. 468, para 20)
"20. From what has been noticed herein before, it is·
evident that 'transport vehicle' has now been substituted
for 'medium goods vehicle' and 'heavy goods vehicle'.·
The light motor vehicle continued, at the relevant point E
of time to cover both 'light passenger carriage vehicle'
"and 'light goods carriage vehicle'; A driver who had a
valid licence to drive a light motor vehicle, therefore,
was authorised to drive a light goods vehicle. as well."
9. In S. Iyyapan (2013) 7 SCC 62, .the question was whether . F
the driver who had a licence to drive "light motor vehicle"
could drive "light motor vehicle" used as a commercial
vehicle, without obtaining endorsement to drive a
commercial vehicl~. It was held that in such a case, the
insurance company could not disown its liability. It was G
observed: (SCC p. 77, para 18)
"18. In the instant case, admittedly the driver was holding
a valid driving licence to drive light motor vehicle. There
is no dispute that the motor vehicle in question, by which
accident took place, was Mahindra Maxi Cab. Merely
H
1120 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 3 S.C.R.

A because the driver did not get any endorsement in the
driving licence to drive Mahindra Maxi Cab, which is a
light motor vehicle, the High Court has committed grave
error of law in holding that the insurer is not liable to
pay compensation because' the driver was not holding
the licence to drive the commercial vehicle. The
B
impugned judgment [Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1016 of
2002, order dated 31-10-2008 (Mad)) is, therefore, liable
to be set aside."
10. No contrary view has been brought to our notice.
C 11. Accordingly, we are of the view that there was no breach
of any condition of insurance policy, in the present case,
entitling the Insurance Company to recovery rights."
34. The decision in Nagashetty v. United India In~urance Co.
Ltd. & Ors. (2001) 8 SCC 56 has also been referred in which it has
D been laid down that the tractor will be used for carrying goods. The
goods will be carried in a trailer attached to it. Thus it was held that the
holder having an effective driving Iicence can drive a tractor, if used for
carrying goods. He would not become disqualified to drive a tractor if a
trailer is attached to it. The contention that it was a transport vehicle, as
trailer was attached to it, consequently, driver was not holding a valid
E licence, was rejected. This Court considered the submission and held as
under:
"9. Relying on these definitions, Mr S.C. Sharda submitted
that admittedly the trailer was filled with stones. He
submitted that once a trailer was attached to the tractor
F the tractor became a transport vehicle as it was used for
carriage of goods. He submitted that Section 10(2) of the
Motor Vehicles Act provides for grant of licences to drive
specific types of vehicles. He submitted that the driver onJy
had a licence to drive a tractor. He submitted that the driver
did not have a licence to drive a transport vehicle. He
G
submitted that therefore it could not be said that the driver
had an effective and valid driving licence to drive a goods
carriage or a transport vehicle. He submitted that thus the
driver did not have a valid driving licence to drive the type
of vehicle he was driving. He submitted that as the driver
H did not have a valid driving licence to drive a transport
MUKUND DEWANGAN v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. 1121
ETC. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

vehicle, the Insurance Company could not be made liable. A
He submitted that the High Court was right in so holding.
10. We are unable to accept the submissions of Mr S.C.
Sharda. It is an admitted fact that the driver had a valid and
effective licence to drive a tractor. Undoubtedly under
Section 10, a licence is granted to drive specific categories B
of motor vehicles. The question is whether merely because
a trailer was attached to the tractor and the tractor was
used for carrying goods, the licence to drive a tractor
becomes ineffective. If the argument of Mr S.C. Sharda is
to be accepted, then every time an owner 9f a private car,
who has a licence to drive a light motor vehicle, attaches a
c
roof carrier to his car or a trailer to his car and carries
goods thereon, the light motor vehicle would become a
transport vehicle and the owner would be deemed to have
no licence to drive that vehicle. It would lead to absurd
results. Merely because a trailer is added either to a tractor D
or to a motor vehicle by itself does not make that tractor or
motor vehicle a transport vehicle. The tractor or motor
· vehicle remains a tractor or motor vehicle. If a person has
a valid driving licence to drive a tractor or a motor vehicle,
he continues to have a valid licence to drive that tractor or
motor vehicle even if a trailer is attached to it and some E
goods are carried in it. In other words, a person having a
valid driving licence to drive a particular category of vehicle
does not become disa~led to drive that vehicle merely
because a trailer is added to that vehicle.
11. In this case we find that the Ins~rance Company, when F
issuing the insurance policy, had also so understood. The
insurance policy has, been issued for a tractor. In this
insurance policy, an additional premium of Rs.12 has been
taken for a trailer. Therefore the insurance policy covers
not just the tractor but also a trailer attached to the tractor. G
The insurance policy provides as follows for the "persons
or cl?sses of persons entitled to drive":
"Persons or classes of persons entitled to tlrive.-Any person
including insured provided that the person driving holds
an effective driving licence at the time of the accident and H
1122 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 3 S.C.R.

A is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence:
Provided also that the person holding an effective learner's
licence may also drive the· vehicle when not used for the
transport of goods at the time of the accident and that such
a person satisfies the requirements of ~ule 3 of the Central
B Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, limitation·s as to use."
12. The policy is for a tractor. The "effective driving
licence" is thus for a tractor. The restriction on a learner
driving the tractor when used for transporting goods shows
that the policy itself contemplates that the tractor· could be
c used for carriage of goods. The tractor by itself could not
carry goods. The goods would be carried in a trailer
attached to it. That is why the extra premium for a trailer.
The restriction placed on a person holding a learner's
licence i.e. not to drive when goods are being carried is
not there for a permanent licence-holder. Thus a permanent
D licence-holder having an effective/valid licence to drive a
tractor .can drive even when the tractor is used for carrying
goods. When the policy itself so permits, the High Court
was wrong in coming to the conclusion that a person having .
a valid driving li.cence to drive a ·tractor w~uld become
E disqualified to drive the tractor if a trailer was attached to
it."
35. "Transport vehicle" as defined in section 2( 47) means a public
service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private
service vehicle. Public service vehicle has been defined in section 2(35)
F to mean any motor vehicle used or adapted to be used for the carriage
of passengers for hire or reward, and includes a max.icab, a motorcab,
contract carriage, and stage carriage. "Goods carriage" which is also a
transport vehicle, is defined in section 2(14)to mean any motor vehicle
constructed or adapted for use solely for the carriage of goods, or an:)'
motor vehicle not so constructed or adapted when used for the carriage
G of goods. It was submitted.that a person holding licence to drive Light
Motor Vehicle who is driving a vehicle registered for private use, is
driving a similar vehicle, which is registered or insured, for the purpose
of carrying passengeFS for hire or reward, would require endorsement
as to drive a "transport vehicle" is not contemplated by the provisions of
the Act. There are several vehicles which can be used for priva_te use as_
H
MUKUND DEWANGAN v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. 1123
ETC.JARUN MISHRA, J.]
,,
well as for carrying passengers for hire or reward. It was also submitted A
that a driver who is competent to drive a vehicle for private use, would
be entitled to drive the same vehicle if it is used for hire or reward or for
even carrying the goods -in the said vehicle. It was also submitted that
it was intended by the Amendment Act 54/1994 to simplify the procedure
notto make it complicated and invalidate the licence oflight motorvehicle
B
and its holder could drive transport vehicle of the weight specified in
section 2(21) of the Act.
36. It was further submitted that there is difference in 'class of
vehicles' and 'type of vehicles' and it is not necessary to obtain
endorsement to drive tr.ansport vehicle of Light Motor Vehicle pategory
when a person is competent to drive the same class of vehicle i.e. a light
c
motor vehicle, as per the Amendment Act 54of1994 and Forms 4 and 6
as amended in 2001.
. .
37 ·~ It was also submitted that when this Court has held in
Annappa lrappa Nesaria (supra) that prior to insertion of the Forms in
2001 the holder of licence of "light .motor vehicle" was competent to D
'drive a transport vehicle also. It was further submitted that no change
has been brought by insertion of the Forms in the provisions contained
in section 10(2)(d).
38. It was also submitted that Section 3 of the MV Act, i 988
from the very beginning provided about the transport vehicle. However, E
classes of vehicle classified in section I0'{1fwere light motor vehicle,
medium goods and passenger motor vehicle, and heavy goods and
passenger vehicle. The change brought about in 1994 was substitution
of transport vehicle in place of medium and heavy goods and passenger
vehicles and in view of the decisions of this Court in Ashok Gangadhar F
(supra), Annappa lrappa Nesaria (supra) and Ku/want Singh (supra),
a person holding LMV licence was competent to drive a transport vehicle.
The provisions of" light motor vehicle" in section 10(2)(d) remains intact.
It has not been amended. It was also submitted that the Forms which
have been ai:nended would not govern the interpretation of the provisions
of Act; whereasthe intendment of the Rule 8 inserted in 2007 was that G
type of vehicle could be added. What is the effect and purpose of insertion
of Rule 8 in 2007, has not been taken into consideration. The Form has
to be interpreted in tune with provisions of the Act and Rules. The object
of the Act and Amendment Act 54/1994 has also not been taken into
consideration in any of the decisions, and the effect of different syllabus H
1124 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 3 S.C.R.

A having been prescribed for "light motor vehicle", heavy and medium
whicles was also not placed for consideration.
39. Jn Ashok Ga11gadhar Maratha in para I 0 (supra), S.Iyyapan
v. United India Insurance Co. (supra), Kulll"ant Singh & Ors. v.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), and Nagashetty \~ United India
insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. (supra), the view taken is that when driver
1s holding licence to drive light motor vehicle, he is competent to drive
transport vehicle of that category; whereas in New India Assurance
Co. Ltd. v. Prabhu Lal (supra) the view taken is that before 2001 also
it was necessary for a driver possessing licence to drive Light Motor
Vehicle to obtain endorsement to drive transport vehicle of that category;
c whereas in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Annappa Irappa Nesaria
(supra), this Court laid down that before 28.3.2001 there was no necessity
for holder of licence to drive light motor vehicle to have endorsement to
drive transport vehicle; whereas in Neil' India Assurance Co. Ltd. v.
Roshanbe11 Rahemansha Fakir & Am: (supra) and Oriental Insurance
D C'o. Ltd. v. Angad Kol & Ors. (supra), the view taken is that it is necessary
for holder of light motor vehicle licence to obtain specific endorsement
011 licence, to drive transport vehicle of the light motor vehicle weight as
provided in section 2( 41 ).
Thus, there appears to be a conflict in the decisions of this Court
with respect to the pre-amended position and also after amendment has
been effected in the Forms in 2001. In view of aforesaid discussion,
following questions are required to be referred to larger Bench :
I. What is the meaning to be given to the definition of "light
motor vehicle'' as defined in section 2(21) of the MY Act?
f< Whether transpo1t vehicles are excluded from it ?
2. Whether 'transport vehicle' and 'omnibus' the "gross vehicle
weight" of either of which does not exceed 7500 kgs. would be a
'"light motor vehicle" and also motor-car or tractor or a road roller,
''unladen weight" of which does not exceed 7500 kgs. and holder
of licence to drive class of"light motor vehicle'' as provided in
section I 0(2)( d) would be competent to drive a transport vehicle
or omnibus, the .. gross vehicle weight" of which does not exceed
7500 kgs. or a motor-car or tractor or road roller, the "unladen
wl!ight" of which does not exceed 7500 kgs.?

ll
MUKUND DEWANGAN v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. 1125
ETC. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

3. What is the effect of the amendment made by virtue of Act
No.54of1994 w.e.f. 14.11.1994 while substituting clauses (e) to
(h) of section I 0(2) which contained "medium goods vehicle",
"medium passenger motor vehicle", "heavy goods vehicle" and
"heavy passenger motor vehicle" by "transport vehicle"? Whether
insertion of expression 'transport vehicle' under section I 0(2)( e)
B
is related to said substituted classes only or it also excluded trans-
port vehicle oflight motor vehicle class from purview of Sections
I 0(2)( d) and 2(41) of the Act?
4. What is the effect of amendment of t)le Form 4 as to operation
of the provisions contained in section I 0 as amended in the year
1994 and whether procedure to obtain driving licence for trans- c
poti vehicle of class of"Light Motor Vehicle" has been changed?
40. Let the matters be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice
of India to constitute a larger Bench in order to resolve conflict in the
views expressed by different Benches of this Court.
D

K<ilpana K. Tripat)ly Matter referred to larger bench.