Holding

A licence issued under section 10(2)(d) for a light motor vehicle automatically authorises the holder to drive a transport vehicle of that class, and no separate endorsement is required.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined whether a holder of a licence to drive a light motor vehicle (LMV) must obtain a separate endorsement to drive a transport vehicle of the same class. By interpreting the definitions in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, particularly section 2(21) and section 10(2)(d), the Court held that a transport vehicle whose gross or unladen weight does not exceed 7,500 kg falls within the LMV category and is automatically covered by an LMV licence. The 1994 amendment inserting "transport vehicle" in section 10(2)(e) was held to apply only to medium and heavy vehicle classes and does not affect the LMV provision. Consequently, no separate endorsement is required for LMV licence holders to drive such transport vehicles. The Court overruled earlier decisions that required an endorsement and allowed the appeal, directing that the matter be placed before the appropriate bench for merits.

Issues considered

What is the meaning of "light motor vehicle" under section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act and does it include transport vehicles?
Does a driver holding a licence for a light motor vehicle need a separate endorsement to drive a transport vehicle of that class?
What is the effect of the 1994 amendment (Act No. 54 of 1994) inserting "transport vehicle" in section 10(2)(e) on the licence requirements for LMVs?
What is the impact of the amendment to Form 4 (effective 28‑03‑2001) on the procedure for obtaining a licence to drive a transport vehicle of the LMV class?

Legislation cited

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988s. 10(2)(d), s. 10(2)(e), s. 2(14), s. 2(15), s. 2(21), s. 2(33), s. 2(35), s. 2(44), s. 2(47), s. 2(48), s. 3, s. 66, s. 94, s. 96
Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989s. Rule 14, s. Rule 16, s. Rule 17, s. Rule 31, s. Rule 34, s. Rule 8

Subjects

light motor vehicletransport vehicledriving licenceendorsementMotor Vehicles Actstatutory interpretationinsurance liabilitysection 3section 10section 2Rule 8Form 4Form 6Form 8

Judgment

[2017] 7 S.C.R. 765

MUKUND DEWANGAN A
v.
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
(Civil Appeal No. 5826of2011)
JULY03,2017 B
[ARUN MISHRA, AMTTAVA ROY AND
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:
ss.3, 10(2), 2(21) - Transport vehicle - Whether a driver who
is having a licence to drive 'light motor vehicle' and is driving
c
'transport vehicle' of that class is required additionally to obtain
an endorsement to drive a transport vehicle - Held: When the
definition of 'light motor vehicle' is read with s.10(2)(d), it is clear
that 'light motor vehicle' is also a 'transport vehicle', the gross
vehicle weight or unladen weight of which does not exceed 7500 D
kgs. as specified in the provision - A driver is issued a licence as
per the class of vehicle i.e. light motor vehicle, transport vehicle or
omnibus or another vehicle of other categories as per gross vehicle
·weight or unladen weight as specified in s.2(21) of the Act - The
provision of s.3 of the Act requires that a persqn in order to drive a E
'transport vehicle' must have authorization - Once a licence is issued
to drive light motor vehicle, it would also mean specific authorization
to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight or
motor car, road roller or tractor, the unladen weight of which, as
the case may be, does not exceed 7500 kg. - The insertion of
'transport vehicle' category in s.10(2)(e) has no effect of obliterating F
the already defined category of transport vehicles of the class of
light motor vehicle - When a driver is authorised to drive a vehicle,
he can drive it irrespective of the fact whether it is used for a private
purpose or for purpose of hire or reward or for carrying the goods
in the said vehicle - This is what is intended by the provision of the G
Act, and the Amendment Act 5411994 - Thus, no separate
endorsement on the licence is required to drive a transport vehicle
of light motor vehicle class - Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 .- rr.8, 17,
. 31, 34.

H
765
766 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R.

A s. l 0 - Licence as per class of vehicles - Held: s. l 0 of the A ct
requires a driver to hold a licence with respect to the class of vehicles
and not with respect to the type of vehicles.
s.10(2) - Effect of amendment made in the sub-section - Held:
The effect of the amendment made by virtue of Act No.5411994 w.e.f
B 14.11.1994 while substituting clauses (e) to (h} of s.10(2) which
contained "medium goods vehicle" in s.10(2)(e), medium passenger
motor vehicle in s.10(2)(/), heavy goods vehicle in s. l 0(2)(g) and
"heavy passenger motor vehicle" in s. l 0(2)(h) with expression
'transport vehicle' as substituted in s. l 0(2)(e) related only to the
said substituted classes only - It does not exclude transport vehicle,
C from the purview of s.10(2)(d) and s.2(41) of the Act i.e. light motor
vehicle.
Form 4 - Effect of amendment made in Form 4 - Held: The
effect of amendment of Form 4 by insertion of "transport vehicle"
is related only to the categories which were substituted in the year
D 1994 and the procedure to obtain driving licence for transport
vehicle of class of "light motor vehicle" continues to be the same as
it was and has not been changed and there is no requirement to
obtain separate endorsement to drive transport vehicle, and if a
driver is holding licence to drive light motor vehicle, he can drive
E transport vehicle of such class without any endorsement to that
effect.
Interpretation of statutes - Court has to constnie a provision
and not to act as a legislature - While interpreting a legislative
provision, the intention of the Legislature, motive and the philosophy
F of the relevant provisions, the goals to be achieved by enacting the
same, have to be taken into consideration - The words cannot be
read into an Act, unless the clear reason for it is to be found within
the four corners of the Act itself
Answering the reference, the Court
G HELD: 1.1 It is apparent from the definition of driving
licence that licence is issued authorizing the person specified in
the licence to drive a motor vehicle or a motor vehicle of any
specified class or description. Significantly, the definition of
'driving licence' categorizes the licence of any specified class or
description. Section 10 deals with the Form and contents of the
H
MUKUND DEWANGAN v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE 767
COMPANY LIMITED

licences to drive. Section 10 was amended in the year 1994 by A
virtue of Amendment Act 54of1994. It is apparent from the pre-
amended provision which existed before the amendment made
in the year 1994 that class or description of the vehicle for which
licence used to be issued were categorized inter alia as light motor
vehicle, medium goods vehicle, medium passenger motor vehicle,
B
heavy goods vehicle, heavy passenger motor vehicle and motor
. vehicle of a specified description. Transport vehicle was not a
separate class, and it could be under section 10(1) (d) to (h).
The pre-amended provision of Section 10 contained the vehicles
of ten kinds in Section 10(2) (a) to (j). In order to simplify the
procedure for obtaining the licence, categories like medium goods c
vehicle, medium passenger motor vehicle, heavy goods vehicle,
and heavy passenger motor vehicle were deleted and one category
was inserted for these four kinds of vehicles in the form of
"transport vehicle" in section 10(2)(e) so that drivers are not
required to obtain the licence again and again for aforesaid four
D
kinds of vehicles. [Paras 4-7] [780-D-F; 781-B-D; 783-D-E]
1.2 The definition of 'light motor vehicle' makes it clear
that for 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 7500 kgs. 'Gross
vehicle weight' has been defined in section 2(15). The motor car E
. or tractor or road roller, the unladen weight of any of which does
not exceed 7500 kgs. as defined in section 2(48) of the Act, are
also the light motor vehicle. No change has been made by
Amendment Act of 54/94 in the provisions contained in sections
2(21) and 10(2)(d) relating to the light motor vehicle. The F
definition of 'light motor vehicle' has to be given full effect to and
it has to be read with section 10(2)(d) which makes it abundantly
clear that 'light motor vehicle' is also a 'transport vehicle', the
gross vehicle weight or unladen weight of which does not exceed
7500 kgs. as specified in the provision. Thus, a driver is issued a
licence as per the class of vehicle i.e. light motor vehicle, G
transport vehicle or omnibus or another vehicle of other
categories as per gross vehicle weight or unladen weight as
specified in section 2(21) of the Act. The provision of section 3 of
the Act requires that a person in order to drive a 'transport
H
768 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R.

A vehicle' must have authorization. Once a licence is issued to drive
light motor vehicle, it would also mean specific authorization to
drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight or
motor car, road roller or tractor, the unladen weight of which, as
the case may be, does not exceed 7500 kg. The insertion of
'transport vehicle' category in section 10(2)(e) has no effect of
B
obliterating the already defined category of transport vehicles of
the class of light motor vehicle. A distinction is made in the Act
of heavy goods vehicle, heavy passenger motor vehicle, medium
goods vehicle and medium passenger motor vehicle on the basis
of 'gross vehicle weight' or 'unladen weight' for heavy passenger
c motor vehicle, heavy goods vehicle, the weight, as the case may
be, exceed 12000 kg. Medium goods vehicle shall mean any
goods carriage other than a light motor vehicle or a heavy goods
vehicle; whereas 'medium passenger motor vehicle' means any
public service vehicle or private service vehicle or educational
D institution bus other than a motorcycle, invalid carriage, light
motor vehicle or heavy passenger motor vehicle. Thus, the newly
incorporated expression 'transport vehicle' in section 10(2)(e)
would include only the vehicles of the category as defined in
section 2(16) - heavy goods vehicle, section 2(17) - heavy
passenger motor vehicle, section 2(23) - medium goods vehicle
E and section 2(24) medium passenger motor vehicle, and would
not include the 'light motor vehicle' which means transport vehicle
also of the weight specified in Section 2(21). [Para 14) (786-F-H;
787-A-F)
Ashok Gangadhar Maratha v. Oriental Insurance Co.
F Ltd. (1999) 6 sec 620 : [1999) 2 Suppl. SCR 202; s.
Iyyapan v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Am:
(2013) 7 SCC 62 : (2013) 7 SCR 45; Nagashetty v.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. (2001) 8 SCC
56 : (2001) 1 Suppl. SCR 656; New India Assurance
Co. Ltd. v. Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir & Anr. (2008)
G 8 SCC 253 : (2008) 8 SCR 328 - referred to.
2. In spite of the amendment made in the year 1994, deleting
section 10(2) (e) to (h), the form in which application was required
to be made was not changed and came to be changed only in the
year 2001 so as to carry out the effect of the Amendment. Form
H
MUKUND DEWANGAN v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE 769
COMPANY LIMITED

4 makes it apparent that 'light motor vehicle' is a description of A
the kind of vehicle as defined in section 2(21). A transport vehicle
of a light motor vehicle category is not at all excluded from the
Form. Even otherwise the Form cannot control the substantive
provisions carved out in section 10(2)(d) and 10(2)(e). The
interpretation of the Form is also to be in tune with the Statement
B
of Objects & Reasons and the provisions of the Act inserted by
virtue of the Amendment. Though it appears that in the amended
Form, 'medium passenger motor vehicle' remains, that appears
to be more due to oversight. Thus, as intended, the simplification
. or the procedures and policy liberalization has taken place by
introducing in the form category of 'transport vehicle' instead or C
medium goods vehicle, medium passenger motor vehicle, heavy
goods vehicle and heavy passenger motor vehicle. The policy or
liberalization became necessary with an introduction or newer
types of vehicles and fast increasing numbers of both personal
and commercial vehicles in the country. In case it was intended
D
to take transport vehicle out of the category of the light motor
vehicle then it was necessary to amend section 2(21) and section
10(2)(d) also which has not been done. Thus, the intendment of
the Amendment has to be taken by addition of 'transport vehicle'
of said categories of medium and heavy vehicles only so that a
person is required to apply for licence, only once to drive said E
four kinds of vehicles as per the amended provision of section
10(2)(e) and the Form. (Para 16) [789-B; 790-C-G)
3.1 Rule 8 of the 1989 Rules which provides for minimum
. educational qualification for driving transport vehicles to be 8'"
standard. The proviso to the rule makes it clear that the said F
qualification shall not apply in the case ofrenewal of driving licence
to drive a transport vehicle and/or addition of another class of
transport vehicle to the driving licence already obtained before
commencement of the Motor Vehicles Act, 2007. The backdrop
history indicates that earlier said Rule 8 existed. It was omitted
on 28.10.1989. It had been re-inserted in 2007. Rule 8 G
contemplates the addition of transport vehicle of another category
than the existing one in the licence. In 2007, the existing category
of transport vehicle could be only of the light motor vehicle in
section 10(2)(d) and another category of the transport vehicle to
H
770 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 7 S.C.R.

A be added is only as in the amended provision 10(2)(e). Rule 8
refers to the addition of transport vehicle to light motor vehicle
category, otherwise no purpose would be left behind insertion of
Rule 8 again in the year 2007, in case transport vehicles of all
categories are read into section 10(2)(e), Rule 8 also
unambiguously lends support to the legislative intent behind
B
section 10(2)(e). Any other interpretation would make it a
redundant rule. An exercise in futility is not undertaken by
legislation. [Para 17) [790-H; 791-A, D-F)
3.2 The form contains separate validity period for a motor
vehicle other than transport vehicles. The form cannot govern
c the interpretation of the provision of Sections 10(2)(d) and 10(2)( e)
otherwise also form has to be interpreted harmoniously with the
Act and cannot be in conflict with the statutory provisions. The
provision of the Light motor vehicle has to be given full effect
and it is enjoined upon the authorities to issue the licence and
D validity period has to be construed accordingly. The validity period
of transport vehicle of light motor vehicle licence which means
the vehicle as defined in section 2(21), has to be the same as that
of other light motor vehicle of non-transport category and there
cannot be any distinction made with respect to the validity period
of the class of light motor vehicle. The separate prescription for
E the validity of transport vehicle in Form 6 is only to take care of
the provisions inserted in section 10(2)(e) by deleting the
provisions of Section 10(2)(e) to (h). It would apply to those
categories. [Para 19) [794-G-H; 795-A-C]
3.3 Rule 17 of the Rules of 1989 provides for the addition
F to driving licence. The application has to be filed for addition in
driving licence in Form 8 as provided in Rule 17. It is apparent
that an application has to be made for the addition of another
class of vehicle. Light motor vehicle and transport vehicle are
separately defined. Thus, it is clear that in Forms 4, 6 and 8,
G transport vehicle has to be understood for the categories of
vehicles for which provision has been amended by section
10(2)(e). The trade certificate has been dealt with in Rule 34.
Rules 34 (2) provides that separate application shall be made for
the classes of vehicles prescribed therein. Rule 34 also makes a
distinction between light motor vehicle, medium passenger motor
H
MUKUND DEWANGAN v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE 771
COMPANY LIMITED

vehicle, medium goods vehicle, heavy passenger motor vehicle A
and heavy goods vehicles. For all types of vehicles, it is necessary
that prototype of every motor vehicle qualify a test by the Vehicle
Research & Development Establishment of the Ministry of
Defence of the Government of India or Automotive Research
Association of India as provided in Rule. 126. The vehicles must B
conform to the provisions of the Rules made under section 110
of the Act. 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 i.e. class of vehicle, gross
vehicle weight, as well as unladen weight, are required to be
mentioned in the registration particulars in Form 20. [Paras 20, C
21] [795-C; 797-A-B, E-G]
3.4 Rule 31 of the Rules contains the syllabus for imparting
instructions in the driving of motor vehicles in schools or
establishments. It is apparent from the syllabus that no separate
syllabus has been provided for transport vehicles. Transport D
vehicles have been included in the syllabus as per the class of
vehicles, that is to say, syllabus of the light motor vehicle would
include the syllabus of transport vehicles of that class. The
syllabus has been formulated as per the weight of the vehicles.
[Para 22] [797-H; 798-A, D-E]
E
Venkataswamy Naidu R. v. Narasram Nqiraindas AIR
1966 SC 361 : [1966] SCR 110; District Mining Officer
VS. Tata Iron and Steel Co. 2001 (7) sec 358; Kannai
Lal Sur v. Paramnidhi Sadhukhan AIR 1967 SC 907;
Poppatlal Shah v. State of Madras AIR 1953 SC 274 :
[1953] SCR 677; Girdharilal & Sons v. Balbir Nath F
Mathur (1986) 2 SCC 237 : [1986] 1 SCR 383; Atma
Ram Mittal V. Ishwar Singh Punia (1988) 4 sec 284 :
[ 1988] 2 Suppl. SCR 528; Reserve Bank of India v.
Pearless General Finance and Investment Co. (1987) 1
SCC 424 : [1987] 2 SCR 1; Atmaram Mittal v. Ishwar G
Singh Punia (1998) 4 SCC 284; Bhagwan Baksh Singh
(Raja) v. Secretary of State AIR 1940 PC 82; R.S.
Raghunath v. State of Karnataka (1992) 1 SCC 335 :
[1991] 1 Suppl. SCR 387; Union of India v. Elphinstone
Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd.& Ors. (2001) 4 SCC
H
772 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R.

A 139 : [2001) 1 SCR 221; National Insurance Co. Ltd.
V. Anjana Shyam & Ors (2007) 7 sec 445 : 12007) 9

SCR 78; The State of Bihar v. Hira Lal Keiriwal & Anr:,
AIR 1960 SC 47 : [1960) SCR 726; M Pentiah &
Ors. v. Mudd.ala Veeramallappa AIR 1961 SC 1107 :
[1961) SCR 295; Tinsukhia Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v.
B
State of Assam & Ors. (1989) 3 SCC 709 : [1989) 2
SCR 544; Nelson Motis v. Union of India & Anr. (1992)
4 SCC 711 : [1992] 1 Suppl. SCR 325; Guntdevdatta
VKSSS Maryadit & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
(2001) 4 SCC 534 : [2001) 2 SCR 654; Nathi Devi v.
c Radha Devi Gupta (2005) 2 SCC 271 : [2004] 6 Suppl.
SCR 1141; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Vijay Anand
Maharaj AIR 1963 SC 946 : [1963] SCR 1; Nalinakhya
Bysack v. Shyam Sunder Haldar & Ors. AIR 1953 SC
148 : [1953] SCR 533; British India General Insurance
Co. Ltd. v. Captain ltbar Singh & Ors. AIR 1959 SC
D
1331 : [1960] SCR 426; VLS Finance Ltd. v. Union of
India (2013) 6 SCC 278 : [2013] 8 SCR 849 - relied
on.
Jane Straford Boyse v. John T. Ross borough 10 ER 1192
(HL); Muray v. Foyle Meats Ltd. (1999) 3 All ER 769;
E Powdrill v. Watson (1995) 2 All ER 65; R. v. Secretary
of State for the Home Department, Ex-parte Daly (2001)
3 All ER 433; Queen v. Eduljee Byra1njee (1946) 3 MIA
468; Crawford v. Spooner (1846) 6 Moo. PC 1 -
referred to.
F 4.1 While interpreting a legislative provision, the intention
of the Legislature, motive and the philosophy of the relevant
provisions, the goals to be achieved by enacting the same, have
to be taken into consideration. The words cannot be read into an
Act, unless the clear reason for it is to be found within the four
G corners of the Act itself. [Paras 24, 29] [798-H; 801-F]
Hansraj Gupta v. Dehra Dun-Mussoorie Electric
Tramway Co. Ltd. AIR 1933 PC 63; Kamalrajan Roy
v. Secretary of State AIR 1938 PC 281; Karnataka
State Financial Corporation v. N. Narsimahaiah (2008)
H 5 SCC 176: [2008] 4 SCR 853 - relied on.
MUKUND DEWANGAN v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE 773
COMPANY LIMITED

4.2 The court cannot re-write the definition of section 2(21) A
of light motor vehicle and section 10(2)(d) and full effect has to
be given to the omission which has been made in the provisions
of section 10(2) (e) to (h), by substituting transport vehicle under
section 10(2)(e), and plain and literal interpretation of existing
provisions and amended provisions has to be made. When the B
legislature has not amended the said provisions it is not for the
Court to legislate by making insertion in section 10(2)(e). What
has not been provided in the statute with a purpose, cannot be
supplied by the courts. Court has to construe a provision and
not to act as a legislature. [Para 30] [801-G-H; 802-A-B]
Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kokilaben c
Chandravandan (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; National Insurance
Co. Ltd. v. Swara11 Singh & Ors. (2004) 3 SCC 297:
(2004] 1 SCR 180; Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. D
Zaharulnisha (2008) 12. SCC 385 : (2008] 7 SCR 58;
New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Roshanben
Rahemansha Fakir & Anr (2008) 8 SCC 253 : [2008]
8 SCR 328 - relied on.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Angad Kol & Ors (2009) E
11 SCC 356 : [2009] 2 SCR 695 - Overruled.
5.1 Section 10(2) (a) to (j) lays down the classes of vehicles
to be driven not a specific kind of motor vehicles in that class. If
a vehicle falls into any of the categories, a licence holder holding
licence to drive the class of vehicle can drive all vehicles of that F
particular class. No separate endorsement is to be obtained nor
provided, if the vehicle falls in any of the particular classes of
section 10(2). This Court has rightly observed in Nagaslietty that
in case submission to the contrary is accepted, then every time
. an owner of a private car, who has a licence to drive a light motor
vehicle, attaches a roof carrier to his car or a trailer to his car and G
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 or to a motor
vehicle it by itself does not mean that driver ceased to have valid H
774 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R.

A driving licence. Even if such a vehicle is treated as transport
vehicle of the light motor vehicle class, legal position would not
change and driver would still have a valid driving licence to drive
transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class, whether it is a
transport vehicle or a private car/tractor attached with trolley or
used for carrying goods in the form of transport vehicle. [Para
B
43) [818-D-G)
Natwar Parikh & Co. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
(2005) 7 sec 364 : [2005) 2 Suppl. SCR 1100 - held
inapplicable.
c New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Prabhu Lal (2008) 1
SCC 696 : (2007) 12 SCR 724 - Not correct law.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Angad Kol & Ors. (2009)
11 SCC 356 : (2009) 2 SCR 695 - overruled.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Annappa lrappa Nesaria
D alias Nesargi & Ors. (2008) 3 SCC 464 : (2008) 1 SCR
1061 - Partly overruled.
Ku/want Singh v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2015) 2
sec 186 - referred to.
5.2 Transport vehicle has been defined in section 2(47) of
E
the Act, to mean 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) to mean any
motor vehicle used or adapted to be used for the carriage of
passengers for hire or reward and includes a maxicab, a motor
F cab, contract carriage, and stage carriage. Goods carriage which
is also a transport vehicle is defined in section 2(14) to mean a
motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use solely for the
carriage of goods, or any motor vehicle not so constructed or
adapted when used for the carriage of goods. A person holding
G licence to drive light motor vehicle registered for private use,
who is driving a similar vehicle which is registered or insured,
for the purpose of carrying passengers for hire or reward, would
not require an endorsement as to drive a transport vehicle, as
the same is not contemplated by the provisions of the Act. There
are several vehicles which can be used for private use as well as
H
MUKUND DEWANGAN v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE 775
COMPANY LIMITED

for carrying passengers for hire or reward. When a driver is A
authorised to drive a vehicle, he can drive it irrespective of the
fact whether it is used for a private purpose or for purpose of
. hire or reward or for carrying the goods in the said vehicle. It is
what is intended by the provision of the Act, and the Amendment
Act 54/1994. [Para 45] [820-B-F]
B
Case Law Reference
[1999] 2 Suppl. SCR 202 referred to Para 1
[2013] 7 SCR 45 referred to Para 1
[2001] 1 Suppl. SCR 656 referred to Para 1 c
[2007] 12 SCR 724 Not correct law Para 36
[2008] 1 SCR 1061 partly overruled Para 38
[2008] 8 SCR 328 referred to Para 1
[2009] 2 SCR 695 overruled Para 39 D
[1966] SCR 110 relied on Para 25
(2001) 1 sec 358 relied on Para 25
AIR 1967 SC 907 relied on Para 25
[1953] SCR 677 relied on Para 25 E
[1986] 1 SCR 383 relied on Para 25
[1988] 2 Suppl. SCR 528 relied on Para 25
[1987] 2 SCR 1 relied on Para 26
(1998) 4 sec 284 relied on Para 26 F

AIR 1940 PC 82 relied on Para 26
[1991] 1 Suppl. SCR 387 relied on Para 26
[2001] 1 SCR 221 relied on Para 26
G
[2007] 9 SCR 78 relied on Para 26
[1960] SCR 726 relied on Para 26
[1961) SCR 295 relied on Para 27
[1989) 2 SCR 544 relied on Para 27
H
776 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R.

A [1992) 1 Suppl. SCR 325 relied on Para 27
[2001) 2 SCR 654 relied on Para 27
[2004) 6 Suppl. SCR 1141 relied on Para 27
[1963) SCR 1 relied on Para 27
B [1953) SCR 533 relied on Para 28
[I 960) SCR 426 relied on Para 28
[2013) 8 SCR 849 relied on Para 28
AIR 1933 PC 63 relied on Para 29
c AIR 1938 PC 281 relied on Para 29
[2008) 4 SCR 853 relied on Para 29
[1987) 2 SCR 752 relied on Para 31
[1996) 3 Suppl. SCR 647 relied on Para 32
D
[2004) 1 SCR 180 relied on Para 32
[2008) 7 SCR 58 relied on Para 32
[2008) 8 SCR 328 relied on Para 37
[2009) 2 SCR 695 overruled Para 39
E
(2015) 2 sec 186 referred to Para 41
[2005] 2 Suppl. SCR 1100 held inapplicable Para 44
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5826
of201 l.
F
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.02.2011 of the High Court
of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in M.A. No. 940 of2006
WITH
Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 32828, 32833, 32835 and 32827
G of2010,
Special Leave Petition (C) No.16082 of 2012,
Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 887-890 and 28455-28456 of2013,
Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 8709-8710, 8712-8713, 13008,
H
MUKUND DEWANGAN v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE 777
COMPANY LIMITED

15759-15760, 14333-14334, 36364-36365, 8704-8706 and25373 of2014, A
Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 20072, 3300, 3302, 6429 and 15924
of2015,
Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.15881, 28778 and 2492-2493 of
2016,
B
Civil appeal Nos. 4068-4069 and 8992of2012,
Civil Appeal No.6379 of2013,
Civil Appeal No. 9990of2014.
Ms. Kiran Suri, Sr. Advs., S.J. Amith, Dr. (Mrs.) Vipin Gupta,
Ms. Prem Lata, Rajeev Kumar Bansal, Akshay K. Ghai, Maneesh
c
Pathak, Brahma Prakash, Ms. Tanuj Bagga Sharma, Rohit Rathi,
Ardhendu Prasad, Tulika Mukherjee, Kumar Anurag Singh, Arup
Banerjee, Kumar Shivam, Manish Pratap Singh, Dr. Nafis A Siddiqui,
Ajay Singh, Vishnu Mehra, Ms. Sakshi Mittal, Sameer Shrivastava, J.
Ohri, Akshat Shrivastava, P.K. Jain, Saurabh Jain, P.K. Goswami, S.P. D
Singh Rathore, Ashok K. Sharma, Uday Prakash Yadav, H. Arjun, Mrs.
Anuradha Soni Verma, R. Balasubramanian, Ms. Anindita Pujari, Ananya
Mishra, Ms. Arti Sinha, Manjunath Meled, Ms. Vijayalaxmi V., Anil
Kumar, Dr. Meera Agarwal, Ramesh Chandra Mishra, Neerja Sachdeva,
Ms. Mera Mathur, Javed M. Rao, Sandiv Kalia, Nand Ram, Amo! N.
E
· Suryawanshi, Ms. Rameeza Hakeem, Abhishek Kumar G., Vireh B.
Saharya, Akshat Agarwal, Rohit K. Sinha, Sanjay Kumar Singh, S. L.
Gupta, C. K. Rai, Arvind Kumar Tiwary, Varinder Kumar Sharma,
Kuldeep Singh Tomar, M.S. Mangla, R. K. Gupta, B. S. Gautam, Anish
Kumar Gupta, R.K. Rajwanshi, Chandra Shekhar Suman, Deep Shikha
Bharti, Meenakshi Midha, Akshay Bhandari, C. S. Ashri, Ms. Shantha F
Devi Raman, Garvesh Kabra, Arbaaz Hussain, Uday B. Dube, Ravi
Bakshi, Sudhir Mathur, Yashpal Dhingra, H. K. Chaturvedi, Raj Singh
Rana, Ms. Sakshi Mittal, SmnitAttri, V. N. Raghupathy, Balaji Srinivasan,
Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan, Yash Pal Dhingra, Akshat Shrivastava, Arup
Banerjee, Jay Kishor Singh, Rajinder Mathur, Mrs Rani Chhabra, Ms.
G
Anindita Pujari, Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, Viresh B. Saharya, Ms.
Nidhi, Ms. Meera Mathur, Javed Mahmud Rao, M. K. Dua, G. Balaji,
Mis. Law Associates, Anis Ahmed Khan, Garvesh Kabra, Ms. Archana
Pathak Dave, Ms. Minakshi Vij, Advs. for the appearing parties.

H
778 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R.

A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ARUN MISHRA, J. 1. In the reference, the main question
involved is whether a driver who is having a licence to drive 'light motor
vehicle' and is driving 'transport vehicle' of that class is required
additionally to obtain an endorsement to drive a transport vehicle? There
B is a conflict in the plethora of decisions of this Court. In Ashok
Gangadhar Maratha v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. ( 1999) 6 SCC
620, S. Iyyapan v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Am: (2013) 7
SCC 62, Nagashetty v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. (2001)
8 SCC 56, the view taken by this Court was that when a driver is holding
a licence to drive 'light motor vehicle', he is competent to drive a
c 'transport vehicle' of that category without specific endorsement to drive
the transport vehicle; whereas in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v.
Prabhu Lal (2008) l SCC 696, a view had been taken that before 200 l
also, it was necessary for a driver possessing driving licence to drive
light motor vehicle to obtain an endorsement to drive transport vehicle of
D that class; whereas in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Annappa Irappa
Nesaria alias Nesargi & Ors. (2008) 3 SCC 464, a distinction was
made in the legal position which existed before 28.3.2001 i.e. the date of
amendment of the form and subsequent thereto. It was opined that before
28 .3 .200 I there was no necessity for the holder of a licence to drive
light motor vehicle to obtain an endorsement to drive transport vehicle of
E that class. He could drive transport vehicle of Light Motor Vehicle
category on the basis of holding a licence to drive light motor vehicle. In
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir &
Anr. (2008) 8 SCC 253 and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Angad Kol
& Ors. (2009) 11 SCC 356, the view had been taken that a driver holding
F licence to drive light motor vehicle in order to drive 'transp011 vehicle' of
that class has to obtain a specific endorsement on licence authorizing
him to drive a transport vehicle.
2. Following questions have been referred for decision to the
larger Bench :
G l. What is the meaning to be given to the definition of"light motor
vehicle" as defined in Section 2(21) of the MV Act? Whether
transport vehicles are excluded from it?
2. Whether 'transport vehicle' and 'omnibus' the "gross vehicle
weight" of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg. would be a
H
MUKUND DEWANGAN v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE 779
COMPANY LIMITED [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

"light motor vehicle" and also motor car or tractor or a road roller, A
"unladen weight" of which does not exceed 7500 kg. and holder
of a licence to drive the 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
B
weight" of which does not exceed 7500 kgs.?
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 10(2) which contained "medium goods vehicle'',
"medium passenger motor vehicle", "heavy goods vehicle" and
"heavy passenger motor vehicle" by "transport vehicle"? Whether c
insertion of expression 'transport vehicle' Under Section 10(2)(e)
is related to said substituted classes only or it also excluded transport
vehicle oflight motor vehicle class from the purview of Sections
10(2)( d) and 2(41) of the Act?
4. What is the effect of Amendment of Form 4 as to the operation D
of the provisions contained in Section 10 as amended in the year
1994 and whether the procedure to obtain the driving licence for
transport vehicle of the class of "Light Motor Vehicle" has been
changed ?"
There is a conflict in the aforesaid decisions of this Court with E
respect to the legal position as to pre-amended and also the post-
amendment legal position of the amendment made on 28.3.2001 in the
Forms for driving licence. In order to answer the questions, it is necessary
· to consider the various provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). p
3. Section 3 of the Act deals with the necessity for driving licence
which is extracted hereunder:
"S.3. Necessity for driving licence.- (1) No person shall
drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective
driving licence issued to him authorising him to drive the vehicle; G
and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle [other than 1[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.
H
780 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R.

A (2) The conditions subject to which sub-section ( 1) shall not apply
to a person receiving instructions in driving a motor vehicle shall
be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government."
1. Subs. by Act 54 of 1994, sec. 3, for "a motor cab" (w.e.f. 14-
11-1994)."
B It is apparent from the provisions contained in section 3 that it is
necessary to have a licence to drive a motor vehicle in any public place
and in order to drive a transport vehicle, the driving licence must
specifically entitle him to do so. The question is what is the meaning to
be given to 'transport vehicle' under Section 3.
c 4. Driving licence has been defined in section 2( 10) of the Act.
The section is extracted hereunder:
"2 (10) "driving licence" means the licence issued by a competent
authority under Chapter II authorising the person specified therein
to drive, otherwise than as a learner, a motor vehicle or a motor
D vehicle of any specified class or description;"
It is apparent from the definition of driving licence that licence is
issued authorizing the person specified in the licence to drive a motor
vehicle or a motor vehicle of any specified class or description.
Significantly, the definition of 'driving licence' categorizes the licence of
E any specified class or description.
5. Section 10 deals with the Form and contents of the licences to
drive. Section 10 as it stood before its amendment made in the year
1994 by virtue of Amendment Act 54 of 1994 is extracted hereunder:
"JO. Form and contents of licences to drive.-{ I)
F
Every 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
licence shall also be expressed as entitling the holder to drive a
G motor vehicle of one or more of the following classes, namely:-
(a) motorcycle without gear;
(b) motorcycle with gear;
( c) invalid carriage;
( d) light motor vehicle;
H
MUKUND DEWANGAN v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE 781
COMPANY LIMITED [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

(e) medium goods vehicle; A
(f) medium passenger motor vehicle;
(g) heavy goods vehicle;
(h) heavy passenger motor vehicle;
(i) roadroller;
(j) motor vehicle of a specified description.""
B
It is apparent from the pre-amended provision which existed before
the amendment made in the year 1994 that class or description of the
vehicle for which licence used to be issued were categorized inter alia
as light motor vehicle, medium goods vehicle, medium passenger motor
vehicle, heavy goods vehicle, heavy passenger motor vehicle and motor
vehicle of a specified description. Transport vehicle was not a separate c
·class, and it could be under section 10(1) (d) to (h).
6. The amendment had been made in section I 0 by virtue of
Amendment Act 54 of 1994. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of
the Amendment Act being relevant is extracted hereunder:
D
"Amendment Act 54 of 1994 - Statement of Objects and
Reasons.-The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59of1988) consolidated
and rationalised various laws regulating road transport. The Act
came into force with effect from 1st July 1989 replacing the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1939.
E
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 oper-ttors and members of public
regarding the inconvenience faced by them because of the
operation of some of the provisions of the 1988 Act. A Review
Committee was, therefore, constituted by the Government in F
March 1990 to examine and review the 1988 Act.
3. The recommendations of the Review Committee were
forwarded to the State Governments for comments and they
generally agree with these recommendations. The Government
also considered a large number of representations received, after G
finalisation of the Report of the Review Committee, from the
transport operators and public for making amendments in the Act.
The draft of the proposals based on the recommendation of the
Review Committee and representations from the public were
placed before the Transport Development Council for seeking
H
782 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R.

A their views in the matter. The important suggestions made by the
Transport Development Council relate to, or are on account of,-
(a) The introduction ofnewer type of vehicles and fast increasing
number of both commercial and personal vehicles in the country.
(b) Providing adequate compensation to victims of road accidents
B without going into long drawn procedure;
(c) Protecting consumers' interest in Transport Sector;
(d) Concern for road safety standards, transport of hazardous
chemicals and pollution control;
C (e) Delegation of greater powers to State Transport Authorities
and rationalising the role of public authorities in certain matters;
(Q The simplification ofprocedures and policy liberalisation in the
field ofRoad Transport;
(g) Enhancing penalties for traffic offenders.
D
4. Therefore, the proposed legislation has been prepared in the
light of the above background. The Bill inter alia provides for-
(a) modification and amplification of certain definitions of new
type of vehicles;
E (b) simplification ofprocedure for grant of driving licences;
(c) putting restrictions on the alteration of vehicles;
(d) certain exemptions for vehicles running on non-polluting fuels;
(e) ceilings on individuals or Co. holdings removed to curb "'benami"
F holdings;
( f) States authorised to appoint one or more State Transport
Appellate Tribunals;
(g) punitive checks on the use of such components that do not
conform to the prescribed standards by manufactures, and also
G stocking/sale by the traders;
(h) increase in the amount of compensation of the victims of hit
and run cases;

H
MUKUND DEWANGAN v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE 783
COMPANY LIMITED [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

(i) removal of time limit for filling of application by road accident A
victims for compensation;
G) punishment in case of certain offences is made stringent;
(k) a new pre-determined formula for payment of compensation
to road accident victims on the basis of age/income, which is more
liberal and rational. B

5. The Law Commission in its I 19th Report had 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 c
limits of whose jurisdiction the Defendant resides, at the option of
the claimant. The bill also makes necessary provision to give effect
to the said recommendation."
7. The pre-amended provision of Section 10 contained the vehicles
often kinds in Section 10(2) (a) to (j). In order to simplify the procedure D
for obtaining the licence, categories like medium goods vehicle, medium
passenger motor vehicle, heavy goods vehicle, and heavy passenger
motor vehicle were deleted and one category was inserted for these
four kinds of vehicles in the form of"transport vehicle" in section I 0(2)( e)
so that drivers are not required to obtain the licence again and again for E
aforesaid four kinds of vehicles. The provision of section 10 after
amendment made by Act 54 of I 994 is extracted hereunder:
"10. Form and contents of licences to drive.-( I) Every
learner's licence and driving licence, except a driving licence issued
Under Section 18, shall be in such form and shall contain such
F
information as may be prescribed by the Central Government.
(2) A learner's licence or, as the case may be, driving licence
shall also be expressed as entitling the holder to drive a motor
vehicle of one or more of the following classes, namely:-
(a) motorcycle without gear; G
(b) motorcycle with gear;
( c) invalid carriage;
(d) light motor vehicle;
( e) transport vehicle;
(f)- (h)
H
784 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 7 S.C.R.

A ( i) road-roller;
(j) motor vehicle of a specified description."
8. Before dilating further, it is necessary to consider other definitions
as 'gross vehicle weight' has co-relation with the classification of vehicles
into a light motor vehicle, medium goods vehicle, medium passenger
B motor vehicle, heavy goods vehicle, and heavy passenger motor vehicle.
The definitions of aforesaid class of vehicles are extracted hereunder:
"2. Definitions.
(16) "heavy goods vehicle" means any goods carriage the gross
vehicle weight of which, or a tractor or a road-roller the unladen
C weight of either of which, exceeds 12,000 kilograms;
(17) "heavy passenger motor vehicle" means any public service
vehicle or private service vehicle or educational institution bus or
omnibus the gross vehicle weight of any of which, or a motor car
the unladen weight of which, exceeds 12,000 kilograms;
D
(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 2 (7500] kilograms;
(23) "medium goods vehicle" means any goods carriage other
E than a light motor vehicle or a heavy goods vehicle;
(24) "medium passenger motor vehicle" means any public service
vehicle or private service vehicle, or educational institution bus
other than a motor cycle, invalid carriage, light motor vehicle or
heavy passenger motor vehicle;"
F
9. The definition of 'gross vehicle weight' and 'unladen weight'
are also significant as the expression finds a place in the aforesaid
definitions. Said definitions in sections 2( 15) and 2(48) are as under:
"2(15) "gross vehicle weight" means in respect of any vehicle
the total weight of the vehicle and load certified and registered by
G
the registering authority as permissible for that vehicle;
"2 (48) "unladen weight" means the weight ofa 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
H
MUKUND DEWANGAN v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE 785
COMPANY LIMITED [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

of the vehicle means the weight of the vehicle with the heaviest A
such alternative part or body;
10. 'Transport vehicle' has been referred in section 2(47) of the
Act thus:
"2 (47) "transport vehicle" means a public service vehicle, a goods
carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle;" B
Various expressions find a place in the aforesaid definition of
'transport vehicle'. Each of them has been defined separately and they
are extracted thus:
"2 (11) "educational institution bus" means an omnibus, which is C
owned by a college, school or other educational institution and
used solely for the purpose of transporting students or staff of the
educational institution in connection with any of its activities;
2 (14) "goods carriage" means any motor vehicle constructed or
adapted for use solely for the carriage of goods, or any motor D
vehicle not so constructed or adapted when used for the carriage
of goods;
2 (33) "private service vehicle" means a motor vehicle constructed
or adapted to carry more than six persons excluding the driver
and ordinarily used by or on behalf of the owner of such vehicle
E
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;
2 (35) "public service vehicle" means any motor vehicle used or
adapted to be used for the carriage of passengers for hire or
F
reward, and includes a maxicab, a motor cab, contract carriage,
and stage carriage;"
11. 'Motor car', 'omnibus' and 'tractor' have been defined in the
Act thus:
"2(26) "motor car" means any motor vehicle other than a G
transport vehicle, omnibus, road-roller, tractor, motor cycle or
invalid can-iage;
2(29) "omnibus" means any motor vehicle constructed or adapted
to carry more than six persons excluding the driver;
H
786 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R.

A 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;"
12. Section 9 of the Act deals with grant of driving licence. Any
person can apply for driving licence unless he is disqualified for holding
B or obtaining a driving licence. The application has to be filed in such
form as may be prescribed by the Central Government as provided in
section 9(2). The applicant has to pass a test also, as provided in section
9(3). It is further provided in section 9(4) that a person applying for the
licence to drive a transport vehicle shall possess such minimum educational
qualification as may be prescribed by the Central Government. Licensing
c authority may refuse to issue a licence to a habitual criminal or a habitual
drunkard or who is habitually addicted to any narcotic drug or psychotropic
substance or whose licence had been revoked earlier.
13. Prior to amendment in 1994 licence for transport vehicle was
clearly covered as per section 10(2) in five categories, i.e., Section
D 10(2)(d) light motor vehicle, Section 10(2)(e) medium goods vehicle,
Section 10(2)(f) medium passenger motor vehicle, Section 10(2)(g) heavy
goods vehicle and Section 10(2)(h) heavy passenger motor vehicle. The
licence for 'light motor vehicle' has been provided in section 10(2)(d).
The expression 'transport vehicle' has been inserted by virtue of
E Amendment Act 5411994 in section I 0(2)(e) after deleting four categories
or classes of vehicles, i.e. medium goods vehicle, medium passenger
motor vehicle, heavy goods vehicle, and heavy passenger motor vehicle.
Earlier Section 10 did not contain the separate class of transport vehicles.
14. The definition of 'light motor vehicle' makes it clear that for a
F 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 7500 kgs. 'Gross vehicle weight' has been
defined in section 2(15). The motor car or tractor or road roller, the
unladen weight of any of which does not exceed 7500 kgs. as defined in
section 2(48) of the Act, are also the light motor vehicle. No change has
G been made by Amendment Act of 54/94 in the provisions contained in
sections 2(21) and 10(2)(d) relating to the light motor vehicle. The
definition of' light motor vehicle' has to be given full effect to and it has
to be read with section 10(2)(d) which makes it abundantly clear that
'light motor vehicle' is also a 'transport vehicle', the gross vehicle weight
H or unladen weight of which does not exceed 7500 kgs. as specified in
MUKUND DEWANGAN v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE 787
COMPANY LIMITED [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

the provision. Thus, a driver is issued a licence as per the class of vehicle A
i.e. light motor vehicle, transport vehicle or omnibus or another vehicle
of other categories as per gross vehicle weight or unladen weight as
specified in section 2(21) of the Act. The provision of section 3 of the
. Act requires that a person in order to drive a 'transport vehicle' must
have authorization. Once a licence is issued to drive light motor vehicle,
B
it would also mean specific authorization to drive a transport vehicle or
omnibus, the gross vehicle weight or motor car, road roller or tractor, the
unladen weight of which, as the case may be, does not exceed 7500 kg.
The insertion of 'transport vehicle' category in section 10(2)( e) has no
effect of obliterating the already defined category of transport vehicles
of the class of light motor vehicle. A distinction is made in the Act of C
heavy goods vehicle, heavy passenger motor vehicle, medium goods
vehicle and medium passenger motor vehicle on the basis of' gross vehicle
weight' or 'unladen weight' for heavy passenger motor vehicle, heavy
goods vehicle, the weight, as the case may be, exceed 12000 kg. Medium
goods vehicle shall mean any goods carriage other than a light motor D
vehicle or a heavy goods vehicle; whereas 'medium passenger motor
vehicle' means any public service vehicle or private service vehicle or
educational institution bus other than a motorcycle, invalid carriage, light
motor vehicle or heavy passenger motor vehicle.
Thus, the newly incorporated expression 'transport vehicle' in
section 10(2)(e) would include only the vehicles of the category as defined E
in section 2( 16) - heavy goods vehicle, section 2( 17) - heavy passenger
motor vehicle, section 2(23)-medium goods vehicle and section 2(24)
medium passenger motor vehicle, and would not include the 'light motor
vehicle' which means transport vehicle also of the weight specified in
Section 2(21 ). F
15. Form 4 has led to some of the divergent views of this Court
which was prevalent before 28.3.2001 prescribed under Rule 14 of the
Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules
of 1989'). The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:
"FORM 4 G
[See Rule 14]
Form of application for licence to drive a motor vehicle
To,
The Licensing Authority,
H
788 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R.

A

[passport
srze photograph!
B

I apply for a licence to enable me to drive vehicles of the following
c description-
(a) Motorcycle without gear
(b) Motorcycle with gear
(c) Invalid carriage
(d) Light motor vehicle
D (e) Medium goods vehicle
(j) Medium passenger motor vehicle
(g) Heavy goods vehicle
(h) Heavy passenger motor vehicle
(i) Roadroller
E (j) Motor vehicle of the following description.
x x x
x x x
x x x
Certificate of test of competence to drive
The applicant has passed the test prescribed under Rule 15 of the
F
Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. The test was conducted on
(here enter the registration mark and description of the vehicle)
........................... on (date).
The applicant has failed in the test.
(The details of deficiency to be listed out)
G Date - - - - - - - -
Signature of testing Authority
Full name and designation
Two specimen signatures ofapplicant:
Strike out whichever is inapplicable."
H
MUKUND DEWANGAN v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE 789
COMPANY LIMITED [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

16. The aforesaid form was in vogue till 28.3.2001. In spite of the A
amendment made in the year 1994, deleting section I 0(2) ( e) to (h), the
form in which application was required to be made was not changed and
came to be changed only in the year 2001 so as to carry out the effect of
the Amendment. The relevant extract of the amended Form, as amended
on 28.3.2001, by which expression 'transport vehicle' had been inserted, B
is extracted hereunder:
"FORM 4
[See Rule 14(1)]
Form of application for licence to drive a motor vehicle
To,
The Licensing Authority, c

IP•SsPOrt
size pho!ographj
D

I apply for a licence to enable me to drive vehicles of the following
description-
(a) Motorcycle without gear
E
(b) Motorcycle with gear
(c) Invalid carriage
(d) Light motor vehicle
(e) Transport vehicle
(j) Medium passenger motor vehicle
F
* * *
( i) Roadroller
(j) Motor vehicle of the following description.
x x x
x x x
x x x G
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). H
790 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R.

A The applicant has failed in the test.
(The details of deficiency to be listed out)
Date ~~~~~~~~-

Signature of testing Authority
Full name & designation
B Two specimen signatures of applicant:
l.
2.
Strike out whichever is inapplicable."
Though Form 4 has undergone other changes with respect to Item
c (a) - motorcycle without gear, same is not relevant for our purpose.
Form 4 makes it apparent that 'light motor vehicle' is a description of the
kind of vehicle as defined in section 2(21 ). A transport vehicle of a light
motor vehicle category is not at all excluded from the Form. Even
otherwise the Form cannot control the substantive provisions carved out
D in section 10(2)(d) and 10(2)(e). The interpretation of the Form is also to
be in tune with the Statement of Objects & Reasons and the provisions
of the Act inserted by virtue of the Amendment. Though it appears that
in the amended Form, 'medium passenger motor vehicle' remains, that
appears to be more due to oversight. Thus, as intended, the simplification
of the procedures and policy liberalization has taken place by introducing
E in the form category of 'transport vehicle' instead of medium goods
vehicle, medium passenger motor vehicle, heavy goods vehicle and heavy
passenger motor vehicle. The policy ofliberalization became necessary
with an introduction of newer types of vehicles and fast increasing
numbers of both personal and commercial vehicles in the country. In
F case it was intended to take transport vehicle out of the category of the
light motor vehicle then it was necessary to amend section 2(21) and
section l 0(2)( d) also which has not been done. Thus, the intendment of
the Amendment has to be taken by addition of 'transport vehicle' of
aforesaid categories of medium and heavy vehicles only so that a person
is required to apply for licence, only once to drive aforesaid four kinds of
G vehicles as per the amended provision of section 10(2)(e) and the Form.
17. Our aforesaid conclusion is also fortified by the inclusion of
Rule 8 of the 1989 Rules which provides for minimum educational
qualification for driving transport vehicles to be 81h standard. The proviso
to the rule makes it clear that the said qualification shall not apply in the
H
MUKUND DEWANGAN v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE 791
COMPANY LIMITED [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

case of renewal of driving licence to drive a transport vehicle and/or A
addition of another class of transport vehicle to the driving licence already
obtained before commencement of the Motor Vehicles Act, 2007.
Amended Rule 8 as inserted w.ej 10.4.2007 is quoted below:
"8. Minimum educational qualification for driving transport
vehicles.-The minimum educational qualification in respect of B
an applicant for obtaining a licence to drive a transport vehicle
shall be a pass in the eighth standard:
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 c
(ii) addition of another class of transport vehicle to the driving
licence;
already held before the commencement of the Motor Vehicles
(Amendment) Rules, 2007." D
The backdrop history indicates that earlier aforesaid Rule 8 existed.
It was omitted on 28.10.1989. It had been re-inse1ted in 2007. Rule 8
contemplates the addition of transport vehicle of another category than
the existing one in the licence. In 2007, the existing category of transport
vehicle could be only of the light motor vehicle in section 10(2)(d) and
E
another category of the transport vehicle to be added is only as in the
amended provision 10(2)(e). Rule 8 refers to the addition of transport
vehicle to light motor vehicle category, otherwise no purpose would be
left behind insertion of Rule 8 again in the year 2007, in case transport
·vehicles of all categories are read into section 10(2)(e), Rule 8 also
unambiguously lends support to the legislative intent behind section F
10(2)(e). Any other interpretation would make it a redundant rule. An
exercise in futility is not undertaken by legislation.
18. Driving licence is issued in Form 6 as provided in Rule 16 of
the Rules of 1989. Form 6 is extracted hereunder:
"FORM 6 G
[See Rule 16(1)]
(To be printed in book form of the size six centimeters by eight
centimeters)

H
792 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R.

A Form of Driving Licence
Name of the licence holder
Son/Wife/Daughter of

B
{passport
slze photograph]

c
Name to be written across the photograph
(Part of the seal and signature of the
Licensing Authority to be on the photograph
and part on the driving licence) Specimen signature/
D thumb impression of
the holder of the
licence

Signature and
E designation of the
Licensing Authority.

Driving licence number
Date of issue
F Name
Son/Wife/Daughter of
Temporary address/official address (if any)
Permanent address
Date of birth
Educational qualifications
G Optional Blood group
Rh factor

The holder of this licence is licensed to drive throughout India vehicles
of the following description-
H Motorcycle without gear
MUKUND DEWANGAN v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE 793
COMPANY LIMITED [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

Motorcycle with gear A
Invalid carriage
Light motor vehicle
Transport vehicle
Medium passen.ger motor vehicle
A motor vehicle of the following description:
B

The licence to drive a motor vehicle The licence to drive transport
other than transport vehicle is valid vehicle is valid from .......... .
from .............. to ............. . to ............ .

Name and designation of the Signature and designation of c
Authority who conducted the Licencing Authority
· driving test.

Authorisation to drive transport
vehicle Number .................... . D

Date ..................... .

Authorised to drive transport vehicle
with effect from ................ .
E
Badge Number .................... .
Signature ................ .
Designation of the Licensing Authority.
Name and designation of the authority
who conducted the driving test. F

Space for addition of other classes of vehicles
Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Date .................... .
Also authorised to drive the following class of or description of motor
vehicles-
G
Name and designation of the Authority
who conducted the driving test.
Signature and
designation of Licensing Authority.
H
794 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R.

A Date: ................ .

Space for renewal of driving licence.

The licence to drive motor vehicles The licence to drive transport
B
other than transport vehicles is vehicles is hereby renewed
hereby renewed.

From ................ to ............... . From ............ to .............. .
Signature of Licensing Authority. Signature ofLicensingAuth.
c
From ................ to ............... . From ............ to .............. .
Signature ofLicensingAuthority. Signature of Licensing Auth.

Signature ofLicensingAuthority.
D
Space for endorsement by Court

Date Section and Rule Fine or other Sign of the
punishment EndorsingAuthority

E 2 3 4
Space for endorsement by Licensing Authority.

Date Proceedings number Disqualification Sign. of the
and date Period Licencing
Authority
F
2 3 4 "

19. Form 6 provides for 'light motor vehicle' and 'transport vehicle'
G separately. Though the form contains separate validity period for a motor
vehicle other than transport vehicles, the aforesaid form and period of
validity have to be understood in the light of the aforesaid discussion
made by us of the light motor vehicle and transport vehicle. The form
cannot govern the interpretation of the provision of Sections 10(2)( d)
and 10(2)(e) otherwise also form has to be interpreted harmoniously
H
MUKUND DEWANGAN v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE 795
COMPANY LIMITED [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

· with the Act and cannot be in conflict with the statutory provisions. The A
provision of the Light motor vehicle has to be given full effect and it is
enjoined upon the authorities to issue the licence in terms of the discussion
made by us in the order and validity period has to be construed accordingly.
The validity period of transport vehicle of light motor vehicle licence
which means the vehicle as defined in section 2(21 ), has to be the same B
as that of other light motor vehicle of non-transport category and there
cannot be any distinction made with respect to the validity period of the
class oflight motor vehicle. The separate prescription for the validity of
transport vehicle in Form 6 is only to take care of the provisions inserted
in section 10(2)(e) by deleting the provisions of Section I 0(2)(e) to (h).
It would apply to those categories. C
20. Rule 17 of the Rules of 1989 provides for the addition to driving
licence. The application has to be filed for addition in driving licence in
Form 8 as provided in Rule 17. Rule 17 and Form 8 are extracted
hereunder:
"17. Addition to driving licence.-( 1) An application for addition D
of another class or description of motor vehicle to the driving
licence shall be made in Form 8 to the licensing authority and shall
be accompanied from-
(a) an effective learner's licence and driving licence held by the
applicant; E
(b) in the case of an application for addition ofa transpo11 vehicle,
the driving certificate in Form 5;
(c) * * *
(d) appropriate fee as specified in Rule 32. F
(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-rule ( l) as they apply in relation to an
application for the grant of a driving licence."
"FORM 8 G
[See Rule 17(1)]
Application for the addition of a new class of vehicle to a driving
licence

H
796 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R.

A To,
The Licensing Authority,

I, Shri/Smt/Kumari ..................... hereby apply for the
addition of the following class/classes of motor vehicle to the
B attached licence--
(a) Motorcycle without gear,
(b) Motorcycle with gear,
(c) Invalid carriages,
(d) Light motor vehicles,
(e) Transport vehicle,
c
(/) Medium passenger motor vehicles,
(g)-(h) * * *
(i) Road rollers,
(j) Motor vehicles of the following description.

D
I enclose,
(a) a Medical Certificate in Form 1-A,
(b) Learner's licence in Form 3,
(c) Driving licence in Form 617,

E
I hereby apply for the addition of the following:
(d) Driving certificate in Form 5 if the application is to drive a
transport vehicle,
(e) I have paid the fee of Rs .......... ..

F Dated: ........... . Signature or thumb impression
of the applicant
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
G on a ........
(here Enter description of vehicle) on date .............. .

Signature of testing authority
Name and designation"
H
MUKUND DEWANGAN v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE 797
COMPANY LIMITED [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

1t is apparent that an application has to be made for the addition A
of another class of vehicle. Light motor vehicle and transport vehicle
· are separately defined. Thus, it is clear that in the aforesaid Forms 4, 6
and 8, transport vehicle has to be understood for the categories of vehicles
for which provision has been amended by section I 0(2)(e ). -
21. The trade certificate has been dealt with in Rule 34. Rules 34 B
(2) provides that separate application shall be made for the classes of
vehicles prescribed therein. Rule 34 is extracted hereunder:
"34. Trade certificate.-{ I) An application for the grant or renewal
of a trade certificate shall be made in Form 16 and shall be
accompanied by appropriate fee as specified in Rule 81. c
(2) Separate application shall be made for each of the following
classes of vehicles, namely-
(a) motorcycle;
(b) invalid carriage;
( c) light motor vehicle; D
(d) medium passenger motor vehicle;
( e) medium goods vehicle;
(f) heavy passenger motor vehicle;
(g) heavy goods vehicle;
(h) any other motor vehicle of a specified description."
E
The aforesaid rule also makes a distinction between light motor
vehicle, medium passenger motor vehicle, medium goods vehicle, heavy
passenger motor vehicle and heavy goods vehicles. For all types of
vehicles, it is necessary that prototype of every motor vehicle qualify a
test by the Vehicle Research & Development Establishment of the
Ministry of Defence of the Government oflndia or Automotive Research F
Association of India as provided in Rule 126. The vehicles must conform
to the provisions of the Rules made under section 110 of the Act. 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
i.e. class of vehicle, gross vehicle weight, as well as unladen weight, are G
required to be mentioned in the registration particulars in Form 20.
22. The interpretation made by us is also supported by the syllabus
which is prescribed for light vehicles and separately for medium and
heavy vehicles driving practice. Rule 31 of the Rules contains the syllabus
for imparting instructions in the driving of motor vehicles in schools or H
798 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R.

A establishments. The syllabus is divided into Parts A to K thus:
"36. Rule 31 of the Rules contains a syllabus for imparting
instructions in the driving of motor vehicles in schools or
establishments. That syllabus is divided in Parts A to K.
Part A deals with driving theory-I.
B 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.
c H- Heavy vehicle driving practice.
I- Fire hazards.
J- Vehicle maintenance.
K- First-aid."
It is apparent from the aforesaid syllabus that no separate syllabus
D has been provided for transport vehicles. Transport vehicles have been
included in the syllabus as per the class of vehicles, that is to say, syllabus
of the light motor vehicle would include the syllabus of transport vehicles
of that class. The syllabus has been formulated as per the weight of the
vehicles.
E 23. The State Government has to maintain a register of motor
vehicles under Rule 75 as provided in Form 41 which includes gross
vehicle weight, unladen weight etc. The Central Government has the
power to frame rules under Section 27, inter alia, regarding minimum
qualification, forms, and contents of the licences etc. Thus, we are of
F the considered opinion that the definition of 'light motor vehicle' under
Section 2(21) of the Act includes transport vehicle of the class and weight
defined therein. The transport vehicle or omnibus would be light motor
vehicle, gross vehicle weight of which, and also a motor car or tractor or
road roller, unladen weight of, which, does not exceed 7500 kg., and
can be driven by holder of licence to drive light motor vehicle and no
G separate endorsement is required to drive such transport vehicle.

24. It is a settled proposition of law that while interpreting a
legislative provision, the intention of the Legislature, motive and the
philosophy of the relevant provisions, the goals to be achieved by enacting
the same, have to be taken into consideration.
H
MUKUND DEWANGAN v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE 799
COMPANY LIMITED [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

25. In Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Justice GP. A
Singh, it has been observed that a statute is an edict of a legislature and
the conventional way of interpreting or construing a statute is to seek
the intention of its maker. The duty of the judicature is to act upon the
true intention of the legislature- mens or sentential logic. If a statutory
provision is open to more than one interpretation, the Court has to choose
B
that interpretation which furthers the intention of the legislature as laid
· down in Venkataswamy Naidu R. v. Narasram Naraindas AIR 1966
SC 361 and District Mining Officer vs. Tata Iron and Steel Co. AIR
2001 (7) SCC 358. Lord Cranworth L.C. in Jane Straford Royse v.
John T. Ross borough I 0 ER 1192 (HL) has observed: "There is no
possioility of mistaking midnight for noon, but at what precise moment c
Twilight becomes darkness is hard to determine." As observed in Muray
v. Foyle Meats Ltd. ( 1999) 3 All ER 769, faced with such problems, the
Court is also conscious of a dividing line, but Court has to be conscious
not to divert its attention from the language used in the statutory provision
and encourage an approach not intended by the legislature. The first and
D
primary rule of construction is that the intention of the legislature must
be found in the words used by Legislature itself, as held in Kannai Lal
Sur v. Paramnidhi Sadhukhan AIR 1967 SC 907. Each word, phrase
or sentence is to be construed in the light of the general purpose of the
Act itself as held in Poppatlal Shah v. State of Madras AIR 1953 SC
274, Girdharilal & Sons v. Balbir Nath Mathur (1986) 2 SCC 237 E
. and Atma Ram Mitt al v. Ishwar Singh Punia ( 1988) 4 SCC 284.
26. It was held in Reserve Bank of India v. Fearless General
Finance and Investment Co. ( 1987) 1 SCC 424 that interpretation must
depend on the text and the context. They are the bases of interpretation.
One may well say that if the text is the texture, context is what gives F
colour. Neither of them can be ignored. Both are important. That
interpretation is best which makes the textual interpretation match the
contextual. A statute is best interpreted when we know why it was
enacted. In Atmaram Mittal v. Ishwar Singh Punia (1998) 4 SCC 284
the Court has referred to "Blackstone Commentaries on the Laws of
England", and it has been observed that the fairest and rational method G
for interpreting a statute is by exploring the intention of the legislature
through the most natural and probable signs which are 'either the words,
the context, the subject matter, the effects and consequence, and the
facts and reasons of law'. The correct interpretation is one that best
H
800 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R.

A harmonises the words with the object of the statute. A right construction
of the Act can only be attained if the whole object and scope together
with circumstances in which it is enacted are taken into consideration.
Lord Porter in Bhagwan Baksh Singh (Raja) v. Secretary of State,
AIR 1940 PC 82 has further referred that the statute has to be read as
a whole in its context. So as to arrive at the meaning of a certain provision
B
in a statute, it is not only legitimate but proper to read that provision in its
context. The context here means the statute as a whole, the previous
state of law, other statutes in pari materia, the general scope of the
statute and the mischief that was intended to remedy as observed in
R.S. Raghunath v. State of Karnataka, 1992 (I) SCC 335, Powdril/ v.
c Watson (1995) 2 All ER 65, R. v. Secretary of State for the Home
Department, Ex-parte Daly, (2001) 3 All ER 433 and a decision of the
Constitution Bench of this Court in Union of India v. Elphinstone
Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd.& Ors. (200 I) 4 SCC 139. To ascertain
the meaning of a clause, the Court must look at the whole statute at
what precedes and at what succeeds and not merely at the clause itself
D
as observed in Queen v. Edu/jee Byramjee, (1946) 3 MIA 468 and
National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Anjana Shyam & Ors. (2007) 7 sec
445. It was also observed that the same word by the author may inean
one thing in one context and another in a different context. For this
reason, the same word used in different sections of a statute or even
E when used at different places in the same clause or section of the statute
may bear different meanings. The conclusion, that the language used
by the legislature is plain or ambiguous can only be arrived at by studying
the statute as a whole. Every word and expression which the legislature
uses have to be given its proper and effective meaning, as the Legislature
uses no expression without purpose and meaning. The principle that the
F
statute must be read as a whole is equally applicable to different parts of
the same section. The section must be construed as a whole whether or
not one of the parts is a saving clause or a proviso. It is not permissible
to omit any part of it, the whole section should be read together as held
in The State of Bihar v. Hira Lal Kejriwal & Am:, AIR 1960 SC 47.
G 27. The author has further observed that the courts strongly lean
against a construction which reduces the statutes to a futility as held in
M Pentiah & Ors. v. Muddala Veeramallappa AIR 1961 SC 1107
and Tinsukhia Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. State of Assam & Ors.
(1989) 3 sec 709. When the words of a statute are clearorunambiguous
H
MUKUND DEWANGAN v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE 80 l
COMPANY LIMITED [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

i.e. they are reasonably susceptible to only one meaning, the courts are A
bound to give effect to that meaning irrespective of the consequences
as held in Nelson Matis V: Union of India & Am: (1992) 4 sec 711,
Gurudevdatta VKSSS Maryadit & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra &
Ors., (2001) 4 SCC 534 and Nathi Devi v. Radha Devi Gupta (2005) 2
SCC 271. It is also a settled proposition of law that when the language B
is plain and unambiguous and admits of only one meaning no question of
construction of a statute arises for the Act speaks for itself as held in
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Vl}ay Anand Maharaj AIR 1963 SC 946.
28. In Crawford v. Spooner (1846) 6 Moo. PC 1 which has been
referred to in Nalinakhya Bysack v. Shyam Sunder Haldar & Ors.,
AIR 1953 SC 148 it has been held that "the Court cannot aid the C
Legislature's defective phrasing of an Act or add and amend or, by
construction, make up deficiencies which are left in the Act." In British
India General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Captain ltbar Singh & Ors.,
AIR 1959 SC 1331 while construing section 96(2) of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1939, this Court refused to add the word 'also' after the words 'on D
any of the following grounds'. It was observed that the rule of
interpretation does not permit the Court to do unless the section, as it
stands, is meaningless or is of doubtful meaning. While interpreting
Section 621-A(l) of Companies Act, 1956 in VLS Finance Ltd. v. Union
of India (2013) 6 SCC 278 this Court held that the Court must avoid
rejection or addition of words and resort to that only in exceptional E
circumstances.
29. The words cannot be read into an Act, unless the clear reason
· for it is to be found within the four comers of the Act itself. It is one of
the principles of statutory interpretation that may matter which should
have been, but has not been provided for in a statute, cannot be supplied F
by courts, as to do so will be legislation and not construction as held in
Hansraj Gupta v. Dehra Dun-Mussoorie Electric Tramway Co. Ltd.
AIR 1933 PC 63, Kamalrajan Roy v. Secretary of State AIR 1938 PC
281 and Karnataka State Financial Corporation v. N. Narsimahaiqh
(2008) 5 SCC 176. The court cannot supply casus omissus. G
30. From the aforesaid principtes, it is apparent that plain and
simple meaning has to be given to section 10(2). When the legislature
has not amended the provision, we cannot re-write the definition of section
2(21) oflight motor vehicle and section 10(2)(d) and full effect has to be
given to the omission which has been made in the provisions of section H
802 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R.

A 10(2) (e) to (h), by substituting transport vehicle under section 10(2)(e),
and plain and literal interpretation of existing provisions and amended
provisions has to be made. When the legislature has not amended the
aforesaid provisions it is not for the Court to legislate by making insertion
in section 10(2)(e). What has not been provided in the statute with a
purpose, cannot be supplied by the courts. Court has to construe a
B
provision and not to act as a legislature. ln other words, interpretation
as suggested by Insurers would mean rewriting of the provision, which
is not pennissible in the light of the aforesaid discussion.
31. ln Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kokilaben
Chandravandan ( 1987) 2 SCC 654, this Court has laid down that the
c motive and philosophy of a provision should be probed, keeping in mind
the goals to be achieved by enacting the same, and the defense built
upon an.exclusion clause by insurer cannot succeed because on a true
interpretation of the relevant clause which interpretation is at peace with
section 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the condition excluding driving by
D a person not duly licensed is not absolute. The promisor is exculpated
when he does everything in his power to keep promise. The Court has
laid down thus :
"12. The defence built on the exclusion clause cannot succeed
for three reasons, viz.:
E ( 1) On a true interpretation of the relevant Clause 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 his power to keep, honour and fulfil
F the promise and he himself is not guilty ofa 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 to allow the
vehicle to be left unattended so that it happens to be driven by
an unlicensed driver.
G
(3) The exclusion Clause has to be "read down" in order
that it is not at war with the "main purpose" of the provisions
enacted for the protection of victims of accidents so that the
promisor is exculpated when he does everything in his power
to keep the promise.
H
MUKUND DEWANGAN v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE 803
COMPANY LIMITED [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

13. In order to divine the intention of the legislature in the course A
of interpretation of the relevant provisions there can scarcely be
a better test than that of probing into the 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
B
not. If the vehicle is not insured any legal liability arising on account
of third party risk wi II have to be borne by the ownerof the 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 C
automobile 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 sustain injuries in the course of an
D
automobile accident or 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 accident.
A court can only pass an award or a decree. It cannot ensure that E
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
F
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 inconsiderable expenditure of time, money
and energy in litigation. To overcome this ugly situation the
legislature has made it obligatory that no motor vehicle shall be G
used unless 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 insurance policy might
provide for liability walled in by conditions which may be specified
H
804 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R.

A 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 except and
save to the extent permitted by Section 96 it will be the obligation
of the insurance Co. to satisfy the judgment obtained against the
B
persons insured against third party risk (vide Section 96). In other
words, the legislature has insisted and made it incumbent on the
user 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
c 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 ofpromise. 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 oflife, has to be interpreted in a
D
meaningful manner which serves rather 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)(b)(ii) extends immunity to the Insurance Co. if
a breach is committed of the condition excluding driving by a named
E person or persons or by any person who is not fully licensed, or by
any person who has been disqualified from holding or obtaining a
driving licence during the period of disqualification. The expression
"breach" is of great significance. The dictionary meaning of
"breach" is "infringement or violation of a promise or obligation"
F (See Collins English Dictionary). It is therefore abundantly clear
that the insurer will have to 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 itself induces an inference that the violation
G 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 has
committed a breach? It is only when the insured himself places
H
MUKUND DEWANGAN v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE 805
COMPANY LIMITED [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

the vehicle in charge of a person who does not hold a driving A
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 Co. that the breach was on
the part of the insured and that it was the insured who was guilty
of violating the promise or infringement of the contract. Unless
B
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 t-0 the fact that.the
promisor (the insured) committed a breach of his promise. Not
when some mishap occurs by some mischance. When the insured
has done everything within his power inasmuch as he has engaged c
a licensed driver and has placed the vehicle in charge of a licensed
driver, with the express or implied mandate to drive himself it
cannot be said that the insured is guilty of any breach. And it is
only in case of a breach or a violation of the promise on the part
of the insured that the insurer can hide under the umbrella of the
D
exclusion clause. In a way the question is as to whether the promise
made by the insured is an 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 E
treated as an absolute promise the grounds for exculpation can be
foillid from Section 84 of the Act which reads thus:
'84. Stationary vehicles. - No person driving or in charge of
a motor vehicle shall cause or allow the vehicle to remain
stationary in any public place, unless there is in the driver's F
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 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 G
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 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
H
806 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R.

A the eye oflaw for excusing non-compliance with the conditions.
It cannot, therefore, in any case, be considered as a breach on the
part of the insured. To construe the provision differently would be
to rewrite the provision by engrafting a rider to the effect that in
the event of the motor vehicle happening to be driven by an
m1licensed person, regardless of the circumstances in which such
B
a contingency occurs, the 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
c which the same have been enacted accompanied 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
fulfill 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!mled to the purpose and philosophy ofthe legislation
D
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. In fact, it appears that the former view is
E 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 depend.mts
on the one hand and the equally plausible view which will reduce
the profitability of the insurer in regard to the occupational hazard
undertaken by him by way of business activity, thcre is hardly any
F
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 exclusion Clause in the light of the "main purpose" of
the provision so that the "exclusion clause" does not cross swords
G with the "main 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 Carters "Breach of Contract" vi de
paragraph 251. To quote:
H
MUKUND DEWANGAN v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE 807
COMPANY LIMITED [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

'Notwithstanding the general ability of contracting parties to A
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 application of wide exclusion clauses
defining a promisor's contractual obligations. For example, in
Glynn v. Margetson&Co. (1893AC 351, 357, LordHalsbury,
B
L.C. stated:
"It seems to me that in construing this document, which 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 c
words, indeed whole provisions, if they are inconsistent with
what one assumes to be the main purpos~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 D
Lords in Suissee At/antique Societe d' Armement Maritime S.A.
v. NV. Rotterdamsche Kolen Centrale (1967) 1 AC 361, 393,
412-413, 427-428, 430. Accordingly, wide exclusion clauses will
be read down to the extent to which they are inconsistent with
the main purpose, or object of the contract." E
(emphasis in original)
32. The aforesaid decision has been approved by this Court in
Sohan Lal Passi v. P. Sesh Reddy & Ors. (1996) 5 SCC 21. It has
been laid down that the insurer has also to satisfy the tribunal or the
court that such violation or infringement on the part of the insured was F
wilful. Ifthe insured has taken all precautions by appointing a duly licensed
driver to drive the vehicle in question and it had 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. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh & Ors. (2004)
3 SCC 297, this Court has laid down that to avoid its liability towards the G
insured, the insurer has to prove that the former was guilty of negligence
· and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the
condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by duly licensed driver
or by one who was not qualified to drive at the relevant time. The insurer
must prove that the breach was on the part of the owner of the vehicle H
808 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 7 S.C.R.

A and burden to prove would be on them. The tribunals in interpreting the
policy conditions would apply "the rule of the main purpose" and the
concept of "fundamental breach" to allow defences available to the
insured under section 149(2) of the Act. Whether the owner has taken
reasonable care, has to be found out in each case. Swaran Singh (supra)
had been referred to in Orienta/ Insurance Co. Ltd.· ir. Zahandnisha
B
(2008) 12 sec 385 and it has been observed that if a person who has
been given a licence for a particular type of vehicle, 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 to drive a light motor vehicle, he can drive either a car or a jeep
c and it is not necessary that he must have driving licence both for car and
jeep separately. In Zaham/nisha case (supra), this Court has laid down
thus:
'
"18. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in National Insurance
Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh (2004) 3 SCC 297 has extensively
D 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 driving another type of vehicle which is of the same category
E 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 .... "
However as the scooterist was possessing a driving licence to
F drive heavy motor vehicle, and he was driving a different class of vehicle,
it was held to be in violation of section 10(2) of the Act, as the scooterist
had no driving licence to drive a scooter.
33. It is apparent from the aforesaid decisions, that the court has
to interpret a provision so as to give it full effect it intends and the
G motivated philosophy of the relevant provision cannot be ignored or
overlooked. The object of the Amendment Act, itself makes it clear that
it had been made in order to simplify the procedures faced with the
situation of increase in different kinds of vehicles. It nowhere intended
to invalidate the licence held before the Amendment had been made.
H
MUKUND DEWANGAN v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE 809
COMPANY LIMITED [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

34. Coming to conflicting decisions of this Court entailing reference A
in Ashok Gangadhar Maratha (supra), this Court has considered the
definition of 'light motor vehicle' and held thus:
"10. The definition of "light motor vehicle" as given in 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 B
has to be covered by the definition of"motor vehicle" or "vehicle"
as given in clause (28) of Section 2 of the Act. A light motor
vehicle cannot always mean a light goods carriage. Light motor
vehicle can be a non-transport vehicle as well."
No doubt about it, that in addition thereto the Court while dealing c
with the matter comprehensively has gone in question as to the pleadings
and the evidence adduced and it was observed that since there was
neither a pleading nor a permit produced on record, the vehicle remained
a light motor vehicle. Ifwe proceed on the basis of the definition itself,
we reach to the same conclusion that for driving transport vehicle of
light motor vehicle category, no separate endorsement is required on a D
licence. Even when a light motor vehicle is used for carrying goods or
for hire or rewards, it becomes a transport vehicle, though it remains
included in the category of light motor vehicle as per Section 2(21) of
the Act. The interpretation of the definition in Ashok Gangadhar
. Maratha (supra), makes it clear that light motor vehicle cannot always E
be a light goods carriage. It can be a non-transport vehicle as well. The
definition of a light mofor vehicle includes light goods vehicle and light
transport vehicle also. The interpretation of the definition oflight motor
vehicle in aforesaid extracted para l 0 is sounq and we are in unison with
the same. It was not necessary for the Court to go into the question of
pleadings and evidence in Ashok Gangadhar Maratha (supra). F
35. In Prabhu Lal (supra), this Court has taken a contrary view
and held that when a driver was holding the valid licence to ply only light
motor vehicle, and no endorsement was made on the licence enabling
him to drive a transport vehicle, it was held to be a breach by the owner
and he could not claim any indemnification from the insurer. It was held G
that the goods carri~r would be a transport vehicle. The accideM took
place on 17.4.1998. The District Forum held that the goods carrier was
a transport vehicle whereas the State Commission held that it was a
light motor vehicle relying on the gross weight of the vehicle. This Court
. set aside the order of the Commission and affirmed the finding of the H
810 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R.

A District Forum. In Prabhu Lal (supra), this Court has considered Ashok
Gangadhar Maratha (supra) and laid down thus:
"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 perspective and held
B that the vehicle driven by Ram Narain was covered by the category
of transport vehicle under clause (4 7) 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 the complainant that there was such endorsement and Ram
Narain was allowed to ply transport vehicle. On the contrary, the
c case of 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.
39. The learned counsel for the complainant, however, heavily
D relied upon Ashok Gangadhar. In that case, the appellant was the
owner of a truck, light motor vehicle, which was insured with the
respondent Insurance Company. The vehicle met with an accident
and a claim was lodged by the complainant before the Consumer
Commission. It was contended by the Insurance Company that
E the truck was a goods carriage or a transport vehicle and since
the driver of the truck was holding a driving licence issued in
Form 6 to drive light motor vehicle only, he was 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
F and setting aside the order passed by the Commission. this Court
held that the driver of the vehicle was holding a valid driving licence
for driving a light motor vehicle and there was no material on
record to show that he was disqualified from holding an effective
valid licence at the time of an accident. In view of those facts, the
G Court held that the policy did not insist on the driver to have a
licence to drive a transport vehicle 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 motor vehicle (LMV) can be a non-transport
H
MUKUND DEWANGAN v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE 811
COMPANY LIMITED [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

vehicle as well. The Court proceeded to observe that since there A
was neither a pleading nor a permit produced on record, the vehicle
remained as a light motor vehicle. And though it can be said to
have been designed to be used as a transport vehicle or a goods
carriage, it could not be so held on account of the statutory
prohibition contained in Section 66 of the Act to be a transport B
vehicle. It was, therefore, held that the Commission was not right
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 inAshok Gangadhar in spite of the fact
that the driver was holding valid driving licence to ply light motor C
vehicle (LMV), this Court upheld 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
pleading nor proof as regards the permit issued by the Transport D
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 clear if one reads para 11 of the
judgment, which reads thus: (SCC p. 626)
E
11. To reiterate, since a vehicle cannot be used as a transport
vehicle on a public road unless there is a permit issued by the
Regional Transport Authority for that purpose and since in the
instant case there is neither a pleading to that effect by any
party nor is there any permit on record, the vehicle in question
would remain a light motor vehicle. The respondent also does F
not say that any permit was granted to the appellant for plying
the vehicle as a transport vehicle under Section 66 of the Act.
Moreover, on the date of the accident, the vehicle was not
carrying any goods and though it could be said to have been
designed to be used as a transport vehicle or a goods carrier, it G
cannot be so held on account of the statutory prohibition
contained in Section 66 of the Act.'
(emphasis supplied)
41. In our judgment, Ashok Gangadhar did not lay down that the
H
812 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R.

A driver holding licence to drive a light motor vehicle need not have
an endorsement to drive transport vehicle and yet he can drive
such vehicle. It was on the 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
B
liable.
42. In the present case, all the facts were before the District
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
c met with an accident was a "transport vehicle''. Ram Narain was
having a licence to drive light motor vehicle only and there was no
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
D Gangadhar does not apply to the case on hand and the Insurance
Company was not liable."
s
36. In our considered opinion Prabhu Lal (supra) question has
not decided correctly. The intendment and definition of the light motor
vehicle which was clearly interpreted in Ashok Gangadhar Maratha
E (supra) in para 10 have not been taken into consideration in the correct
perspective. Interpretation ofForm 6 was also not correctly made. Even
assuming that Ashok Gangadhar Maratha (supra) did not lay down
that the driver holding licence to drive a light motor vehicle need not
have an endorsement to drive a transport vehicle, but what emerges
from the aforesaid discussion made by us it is clear that there is no
F necessity of such an endorsement for driving a transport vehicle of the
category oflight motor vehicle, which is not statutorily enjoined or provided
for. The intendment of section 3 has also not been correctly appreciated.
It has to be read along with Section l 0(2)( d) and ( e) and those classes
of vehicles which are included in a category l 0(2) (a) to (j) can be
G driven by a person without any further specific endorsement to drive a
particular vehicle. Thus, the decision in Prabhu Lal (supra) does not lay
down correct proposition oflaw and is hereby overruled.
37. In New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Roshanben
Rahemansha Fakir & Anr. (2008) 8 SCC 253 the driver was the holder
H of a licence to drive a three-wheeler. This Court noted that the licence
MUKUND DEWANGAN v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE 813
COMPANY LIMITED [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

was not meant to be used to drive a transport vehicle. The vehicle involved A
was an autorickshaw delivery van and was a goods carrier. It was
contended that the driver was not the holder of a legal and valid licence.
This Court came to the conclusion that since the licence was issued or
renewed for a period of20 years from the date of issuance or renewal,
the driver was not holding the licence to drive a transport vehicle as
B
transport licence is not issued for such duration. The decision in the
aforesaid case also cannot hold the field in the light of the law discussed
in the instant matters and as the driver driving such a vehicle i.e. three-
wheeler was holding the licence to drive a light motor vehicle, the
restricted duration of renewal would not be applicable to the light transport
vehicle. The discussion to the contrary in Roshan Lal (supra) cannot c
hold the field.
38. In Annappa Irappa Nesaria (supra), a Division Bench of
this Court has considered the question with respect to an accident which
took place on 9.12.1999. The driver was driving a Matador van, a "goods
carriage" vehicle, holding a licence to drive light motor vehicle. This · D
Court referred to Forms 4 and 6 and Rules 14 and 16 of the Rules of
1989 and opined that as Form 4 has been amended w.e.f. 28.3.2001,
transport vehicle has been substituted for medium goods vehicle and
heavy goods vehicle and provision in the form at the relevant time, covered
both "light passenger carriage vehicle" and "light goods carriage vehicle".
The driver who had a valid driving licence to drive a light motor vehicle, E
therefore, was authorized to drive a light goods vehicle (transport vehicle)
as well. The view taken with respect to the pre-amended position, before
the amendment of Form 4 on 28.3.2001 appears to be correct for the
reasons discussed by us. However, no change has been brought about
by insertion of Form 4 after 28.3.2001 with respect to LMV category F
transport vehicle, thus, Annappa Irappa Nesaria (supra) cannot be
taken to be laying down correct legal position applicable after 28.3.2001.
With respect to the post-amendment legal position, the decision cannot
be said to be laying down the correct law. However, this Court has
rightly opined in the aforesaid case that the person holding a licence to
drive "light motor vehicle" could have driven "light passenger carriage G
vehicle" and "light goods carriage vehicle" also. Thus, the decision is
partially overruled to the aforesaid extent only.
39. In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Angad Kol & Ors. (2009)
11 SCC 356, this Court has considered the decisions in Annappa Irappa
H
814 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R.

A Nesaria (supra) and Prabhu Lal (supra). The accident took place on
31. I 0.2004. A mini dor auto dashed against the insured. The question
arose whether the driver was not having an effective driving licence to
drive "goods carriage vehicle" since he was holding the licence to drive
the motorcycle and light motor vehicle. It was granted for a period of20
years and as such this Court presumed that it was meant for the purpose
B
of driving a vehicle other than a transport vehicle. This Court has 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
c been granted for a transport vehicle, the tenure thereof could not
have exceeded to three years."
This Court observed that for grant oflicence to drive a transport
vehicle, provision in Section I 0(2)( e) became effective from 28.3.200 I,
that is, the date on which form was amended and held that the vehicle
D was a "goods vehicle" as such the driver did not hold a valid driving
licence for a "goods vehicle". The legal position cannot be said to have
been correctly appreciated in Angad Kol s case (supra), for the reasons
discussed by us, as the vehicle was of light motor vehicle class. Thus,
the decision is required to be overruled as the vehicle which was driven
E was the light motor vehicle, though, it was goods carriage vehicle i.e.
transport vehicle.
40. In S. Iyyapan (supra), this Court has considered the decisions
in Ashok Gangadhar (supra), Annappa Jrappa Nesaria (supra) as
well as Prabhu Lal (supra) and has laid down thus:
F "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 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
G
the 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 impugned judgment (Civil
Misc. Appeal No. I 016 of 2002, order dated 31.l 0.2008 (Mad))
is, therefore, liable to be set aside."
H
MUKUND DEWANGAN v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE 815
COMPANY LIMITED [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

This Court has rightly held in S. lyyapan (supra) that it was not A
necessary for the driver to get any endorsement in the driving licence to
drive Mahindra Maxi Cab as he was authorized to drive a light motor
vehicle.
41. In Ku/want Singh v. Orienta/ Insurance Co. Ltd. (2015) 2
SCC 186, this Court has referred to the decisions in S. lyyapan (supra) B
and Annappa Jrappa Nesaria (supra) and has laid down that once the
driver is holding a licence to drive light motor vehicle, he can drive
commercial vehicle of that category. In Ku/want Singh (supra) it has
been laid down thus:
"8. We find that the judgments relied upon cover the issue in c
favour of the Appellants. In Annappa Jrappa 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 vehicle" and "medium goods vehicle" respectively
and the Rules prescribing the forms for the licence i.e. Rule 14
and Form 4. It was concluded: (SCC p. 468, para 20) D
"20. From what has been noticed hereinbefore, 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 of time to cover both
'light passenger carriage vehicle' and 'light goods carriage E
vehicle'. A driver who hada 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 the
driver who had a licence to drive "light motor vehicle" could drive F
"light motor vehicle" used as a commercial vehicle, without
obtaining endorsement to drive a commercial vehicle. It was held
that in such a case, the insurance Co. could not disown its liability.
It was observed: (SCC p. 77, para 18)
"18. In the instant case, admittedly the driver was holding a G
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 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 H
816 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R.

A 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 impugned judgment [Civil Misc. Appeal No. I 016 of2002,
order dated 31-10-2008 (Mad)] is, therefore, liable to be set
aside."
B
10. No contrary view has been brought to our notice.
11. Accordingly, we are of the view that there was no breach
ofany condition ofinsurance policy, in the present case, entitling
the Insurance Company to recovery rights."
c Though, as held above, and for the reasons assigned by us, the
conclusion in Ku/want Singh (supra) was correct, however for the post-
amended position after 28.3.2001 also the law continues to be the same
for LMV class of vehicles.
42. In Nagashetty (supra), the vehicle involved was a tractor
D which was used for carrying goods. The goods were carried in a trailer
attached to it. It was held that ifa driver was holding an effective licence
to drive a tractor, he could validly drive the tractor attached to a trailer.
The contention that it was a transport vehicle, as the tractor was attached
to a trailer and as such the driver was not holding a valid licence, was
E rejected. This Court has laid down thus:
"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 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
F
licences to drive specific types of vehicles. He submitted that the
driver only had a licence to drive a tractor. He submitted that the
driver did not have a licence to drive a transport vehicle. He
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
G 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 did not have a valid driving licence
to drive a transport vehicle, the Insurance Co. could not be made
liable. He submitted that the High Court was right in so holding.
H
MUKUND DEWANGAN v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE 817
COMPANY LIMITED [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

10. We are unable to accept the submissions of Mr. S.C. Sharda. A
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 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
B
drive a tractor becomes ineffective. If the argument of Mr. S.C.
Sharda is to be accepted, then every time an owner of a private
car, who has a licence to drive a light motor vehicle, attaches a
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 c
vehicle. It would lead to absurd results. Merely because a trailer
is added either to a tractor 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 D
continues to have a valid licence to drive that tractor or motor
vehicle even if a trailer is attached to it and some 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 disabled to
drive that vehicle merely because a trailer is added to that vehicle.
11. In this case, we find that the Insurance Company when issuing E
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. The insurance policy provides as follows for the F
"persons or classes of persons entitled to drive":
'Persons or classes ofpersons entitled to drive -Any person
including insured provided that the person driving holds an
effective driving licence at the time of the accident and is not
disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence: G
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 ofRule 3 of the Central Motor
Vehicles Rules, 1989, limitations as to use.' H
818 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R.

A 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 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
B
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 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
c itself so permits, the High Court was wrong in coming to the
conclusion that a person having a valid driving licence to drive a
tractor would become disqualified to drive the tractor if a trailer
was attached to it."
43. Section 10(2) (a) to (j) lays down the classes of vehicles to be
D driven not a specific kind of motor vehicles in that class. If a vehicle falls
into any of the categories, a licence holder holding licence to drive the
class of vehicle can drive all vehicles of that particular class. No separate
endorsement is to be obtained nor provided, ifthe vehicle falls in any of
the particular classes of section I 0(2). This Court has rightly observed
in Nagashetty (supra) that in case submission to the contrary is accepted,
E then every time an owner of a private car, who has a licence to drive a
light motor vehicle, attaches a 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
F trailer is added either to a tractor or to a motor vehicle it by itself does
not mean that driver ceased to have valid driving licence. In our considered
opinion, even if such a vehicle is treated as transport vehicle of the light
motor vehicle class, legal position would not change and driver would
still have a valid driving licence to drive transport vehicle oflight motor
vehicle class, whether it is a transport vehicle or a private car/tractor
G attached with trolley or used for carrying goods in the form of transport
vehicle. The ultimate conclusion in Nagashetty (supra) is correct,
however, for the reasons as explained by us.
44. In Natwar Parikh & Co. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
(2005) 7 SCC 364, this Court was concerned with the taxation under the
H
MUKUND DEWANGAN v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE 819
COMPANY LIMITED [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 and question arose whether A
the tractor along with trailer for transporting goods was to constitute
distinct category of goods carrier which requires permission under Section
2(14) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1957 and absence thereof would render
. it liable to tax under Section 3(2). This court held that the tractor when
attached with the trailer carrying goods, would become a transport vehicle
B
for the purpose of taxation. This Court has discussed the question thus:
"Section 2(28) is a comprehensive definition of the words "motor
vehicle". Although a "trailer" is separately defined in Section 2( 46)
to mean any vehicle drawn or intended to be drawn by a motor
vehicle, it is still included in the definition of the words "motor
vehicle" under Section 2(28). Similarly, the word "tractor" is c
defined in Section 2(44) to mean a motor vehicle which is not
itselfconstructed to carry any load. Therefore, the words "motor
vehicle" have been defined in the comprehensive sense by the
legislature. Therefore, we have to read the words "motor vehicle"
in the broadest possible sense keeping in mind that the Act has D
been enacted in order to keep control over motor vehicles, transport
vehicles, etc. A combined reading of the aforestated definitions
under Section 2, reproduced hereinabove, shows that the definition
of "motor vehicle" includes any mechanically propelled vehicle
apt for use upon roads irrespective of the source of power and it
includes a trailer. Therefore, even though a trailer is drawn by a E
motor vehicle, it by itself is a motor vehicle, the tractor-trailer
would constitute a "goods carriage" under Section 2(14) and
consequently, a "transp011 vehicle" under Section 2(47). The test
to be applied in such a case is whether the vehicle is proposed to
be used for transporting goods from one place to another. When a F
vehicle is so altered or prepared that it becomes apt for use for
transporting goods, it can be stated that it is adapted for the carriage
of goods. Applying the above test, we are of the view that the
tractor-trailer in the present case falls under Section 2( 14) as a
"goods carriage" and consequently, it falls under the definition of
"transport vehicle" under Section 2(47) of the MV Act, 1988." G
There is no dispute with the aforesaid proposition, that tractor if
drawing a trailer with goods would constitute goods carrier and
. consequently would be a transport vehicle. The aforesaid discussion
was with respect to taxation and not with respect to the competence of
H
820 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R.

A driver holding light motor vehicle licence to drive the tractor attached
with trailer/trolley carrying goods. The driver had the competence to
drive such a vehicle, tractor with a trailer carrying goods being oflight
motor vehicle category transport vehicle which is the question involved
in the instant case. Therefore, the decision renders no help with the
cause espoused by the insurer.
B
45. Transport vehicle has been 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. Public service vehicle has
been defined in section 2(35) to mean any motor vehicle used or adapted
to be used for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward and includes
c a maxicab, a motor cab, contract carriage, and stage carriage. Goods
carriage which is also a transport vehicle is defined in section 2(14) to
mean a motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use solely for the
carriage of goods, or any motor vehicle not so constructed or adapted
when used for the carriage of goods. It was rightly submitted that a
D person holding licence to drive light motor vehicle registered for private
use, who is driving a similar vehicle which is registered or insured, for
the purpose of carrying passengers for hire or reward, would not require
an endorsement as to drive a transport vehicle, as the same is not
contemplated by the provisions of the Act. It was also rightly contended
that there are several vehicles which can be used for private use as well
E as for carrying passengers for hire or reward. When a driver is authorised
to drive a vehicle, he can drive it irrespective of the fact whether it is
used for a private purpose or for purpose of hire or reward or for carrying
the goods in the said vehicle. It is what is intended by the provision of
the Act, and the Amendment Act 5411994.
F 46. Section 10 of the Act requires a driver to hold a licence with
respect to the class of vehicles and not with respect to the type of vehicles.
In one class of vehicles, there may be different kinds of vehicles. If they
fall in the same class of vehicles, no separate endorsement is required to
drive such vehicles. As light motor vehicle includes transport vehicle
G also, a holder oflight motor vehicle licence can drive all the vehicles of
the class including transport vehicles. It was pre-amended position as
well the post-amended position of Form 4 as amended on 28.3.2001.
Any other interpretation would be repugnant to the definition of "light
motor vehicle" in section 2(21) and the provisions of section 10(2)(d),
Rule 8 of the Rules of 1989, other provisions and also the forms which
H
MUKUND DEWANGAN v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE 821
COMPANY LIMITED [ARUN MISHRA, J.)

are in tune with the provisions. Even otherwise the forms never intended A
to exclude transport vehicles from the category of' light motor vehicles'
and for light motor vehicle, the validity period of such licence hold good
and apply for the transport vehicle of such class also and the expression
in Section I 0(2)( e) of the Act 'Transport Vehicle' would include medium
goods vehicle, medium passenger motor vehicle, heavy goods vehicle, B
heavy passenger motor vehicle which earlier found place in section
10(2)(e) to (h) and our conclusion is fortified by the syllabus and rules
· which we have discussed. Thus we answer the questions which are
referred to us thus:
(i) 'Light motor vehicle' as defined in section 2(21) of the Act
would include a transport vehicle as per the weight prescribed in section C
2(21) read with section 2( 15) and 2(48). Such transport vehicles are not
excluded from the definition of the light motor vehicle by virtue of
Amendment Act No.54/1994.
(ii) A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of
either of which does not exceed 7500 kg. would be a light motor vehicle D
and also motor car or tractor or a road roller, 'unladen weight' of which
does not exceed 7500 kg. and holder of a driving licence to drive class of
"light motor vehicle" as provided in section 10(2)(d) is competent to
drive a transport vehicle or onmibus, the gross vehicle weight of which
does not exceed 7500 kg. or a motor car or tractor or road-roller, the E
"unladen weight" of which does not exceed 7500 kg. That is to say, no
. separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive a transport
vehicle oflight motor vehicle class as enumerated above. A licence issued
under section 10(2)(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54/
1994 and 28.3.2001 in the form.
F
(iii) The effect of the amendment made by virtue of Act No.54/
1994 w.e.f. 14.11.1994 while substituting clauses (e) to (h) of section
10(2) which contained "medium goods vehicle" in section 10(2)(e ),
medium passenger motor vehicle in section l 0(2)(f), heavy goods vehicle
in section 10(2)(g) and "heavy passenger motor vehicle" in section
10(2)(h) with expression 'transport vehicle' as substituted in section G
10(2)( e) related only to the aforesaid substituted classes only. It does
not exclude transport vehicle, from the purview of section 10(2)(d) and
section 2( 41) of the Act i.e. light motor vehicle.
(iv) The effect of amendment of Form 4 by insertion of"transport
H
822 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R.

A vehicle" is related only to the categories which were substituted in the
year 1994 and the procedure to obtain driving licence for transport vehicle
of class of"light motor vehicle" continues to be the same as it was and
has not been changed and there is no requirement to obtain separate
endorsement to drive transport vehicle, and if a driver is holding licence
to drive light motor vehicle, he can drive transport vehicle of such class
B
without any endorsement to that effect.
47. In the light of aforesaid answer; let matters be placed for
hearing on merits before the appropriate Bench.

c Dcvika Gujral Reference answered.