Holding

A licence to drive a light motor vehicle includes authority to drive a light goods‑carriage vehicle, so the driver was duly authorised and the insurer’s contention fails.

Summary

In 1999 a Matador Van, insured by National Insurance Company Ltd., met with an accident that caused the death of the wife of the plaintiff. The insurer contended that the driver, who held a licence for a "light motor vehicle" (LMV), was not authorized to drive the van, which was a goods‑carriage (transport) vehicle, and therefore the claim should be denied. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the Karnataka High Court held that, under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 as they stood before the 2001 amendment, a licence for an LMV included the authority to drive a light goods‑carriage vehicle. The Supreme Court affirmed this view, noting that the amendment introducing the term "transport vehicle" was prospective and could not invalidate the driver’s licence at the relevant time. Consequently, the insurer was liable and the appeal was dismissed with costs.

Issues considered

Whether a licence issued for a "light motor vehicle" authorises the holder to drive a light goods‑carriage (transport) vehicle as defined under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.

Legislation cited

Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989s. 14, s. 2(e)
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988s. 2(16), s. 2(21), s. 2(23), s. 3

Subjects

driving licencelight motor vehicletransport vehicleMotor Vehicles ActCentral Motor Vehicles Rulesinsurance liabilitymotor accidentprospective amendment

Judgment

[2008] 1 S.C.R. 1061

A NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. 'p-- .....
\I.
ANNAPPA IRAPPA NESARIA AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 574 of 2008)
JANUARY 22, 2008
B
[S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.]
~

Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 -- r. 14 -- Form 4 -- 'Ii
Driving licence -- Validity of -- Matador Van having 'goods
c carriage' permit met with accident in 1999 resulting in death of
a person -- Contention raised by insurance company that
driver of the offending vehicle did not possess effective driving
licence since he only had a licence to drive a light motor
vehicle -- Tenability of - Held: Not tenable - Prior to
amendment carried out in Form 4 w.e.f. 23-8-2001, a "light
D
motor vehicle" covered both 'light passenger carriage vehicle'
and 'light goods carriage vehicle', hence, person holding
.. ...
licence to drive a light motor vehicle was authorised to drive a
light goods vehicle as well - Since the said amendment had
prospective operation, licence held by driver of the vehicle in
E
question cannot be said to be invalid in law - Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988- ss.2(21), 2(16) and 2(23).
A Matador Van having a 'Goods Carriage' permit met
with an accident resulting in death of the wife of
F Respondent No.1. The incident occurred in 1999. "(.~

Appellant-insurance company raised contention that
the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess an
effective licence to drive the same since he only had a
valid licence to drive a light motor vehicle. It is the
G contention of Appellant that for the purpose of grant of
licence for driving a vehicle, an application has to be filed
in Form No.4, whereafter only a licence is granted in Form
No.6; that the said Forms have been prescribed in terms
of Rules 14 and 16 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules,
H 1061
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. v. ANNAPPA 1062
!RAPPA NESARIAAND ORS.,.

,._ -1 1989 and that in view thereof, a 'light motor vehicle' does A
not answer the description of a 'transport vehicle'.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1. The word 'Form' has been defined in Rule
2(e) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 to mean a B
Form appended to the rules. Rule 14 prescribes for filing
of an application in Form 4, for a licence to drive a motor
~
vehicle, categorizing the same in nine types of vehicles.
Clause (e) in Form 4 provides for 'Transport vehicle' which
has been substituted by G.S.R. 221 (E) with effect from c
28.3.2001. [Paras 13, 14) [1066-H; 1067-EJ
1.2. Before the said amendment in 2001, the entries
'medium goods vehicle' and 'heavy goods vehicle' existed
which have been substituted by 'transport vehicle'. 'Light
Motor Vehicles' also found place therein. 'Light Motor D
-t Vehicle' is defined in Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles
4
Act, 1988 and, therefore, in view of the provision, as then
existed, it included a light transport vehicle. The "light
motor vehicle" thus continued, at the relevant point of
time, to cover both, 'light passenger carriage vehicle' and E
'light goods carriage vehicle'. A driver who had a valid
licence to drive a light motor vehicle, therefore, was
authorised to drive a light goods vehicle as well. The
amendments carried out in the Rules having a prospective
operation, the licence held by the driver of the vehicle in F
,,. >-
question cannot be said to be invalid in law. [Paras 14, 15,
16, 17) [1067-E-G; 1068-D-E]
Ashok Gangadhar Maratha v. Oriental Insurance
Company Ltd. (1999 ) (6) SCC 620- referred to.
G
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 574

" of 2008.
From the final Judgment and Order dated 14.7.2003 of
the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in M.F.A. No. 7788/
2002 (MV) H
1063 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 1 S.C.R.

A Atul Nanda, Rameeza Hakeem, Rajesh Kumar, P.N. Puri, )--· ..
Parmanand Gaur, Neha Gaur, Vishnu Mehra and B.K. Satija for
the Appellant.
J.P. Dhanda, Raj Rani Dhanda, Dr. Sushil Balwada, S.N.
Bhat, Neeraj Kumar Jain, Bharat Singh, Sanjay Singh, Sandeep
B Chaturvedi, Ugra Shankar Prasad, Rajesh Tyagi, Dr. Aparna
Bhardwaj, Atishi Dipankar and Ashwani Kumar for the
Respondents. ,..
·,
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
c . S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted .
2. Appellant - National Insurance Company is before us,
aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated
14th July, 2003, passed by a learned Single Judge of the
Karnaraka High Court in M.F.A. No. 7788/2002 dismissing the
D
appeal preferred against an award dated 17.9.2002 passed
by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ("Tribunal" for short) in
.•
M.V.C No.124/2000.
3. The fact of the matter relevant for the purpose of disposal
E of this appeal is as under :
The vehicle involved in the accident was a Matador Van
bearing registration No. KA-23/2890. It had a 'Goods Carriage'
permit granted in terms of Form No.7 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
It was insured with the appellant. The said vehicle met with an
F accident on 9.12.1999 causing death of one Gangawwa wife ~ ~
of the respondent No.1 herein. A contention was raised on
behalf of the appellant that the driver of the said vehicle did not
possess an effective licence to drive a transport vehicle.

G 4. An issue (being Issue No.3), inter alia, was framed in
that behalf before the Tribunal, which reads as under:
"Whether the R-3 proves that driver of offending vehicle
was not an authorised person to drive the same?"
5. The learned Tribunal in support of its award on Issue
H
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. v. ANNAPPA 1064
IRAPPA NESARIA AND ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]

.h--f No.3, held: A
"DW-1 in this cross examination admitted that offending
vehicle is authorised to transport 3500 kgs. goods. Further,
in this cross-examination stated that LMV means transport
vehicle which unladen weight does not exceed 7500 kgs.
Ex.D-2 at Column No.12 clearly shows that the unladen B
weight of the offending vehicle is 3500 kgs. Thereby it is
... very much clear that said unladen weight of the offending
vehicle is much less than 7500 kgs. as admitted by DW-
1 in his cross-examination which is also the effect as
defined in the MV Act. So when the unladen weight of the c
offending vehicle is less than 7500 kgs. the RW-1 driver
who is having DL as per Ex.D-3 is certainly authorised to
drive the offending vehicle. The decision relied upon by
Adv. for petitioners at serial No.2 ruling reported in 2000(5)
KLJ 473 (DB) or own Hon'ble High Court had clearly held D
-t that where offending vehicle is weighing 4960 kgs. driven
• by a person having DL to drive the LMV, there is breach
of issuance policy, as statute classifies vehicle weighing
below 7500 kgs. as LMVs and Insurer is liable to satisfy
award in respect of accident that occurred when the vehicle E
was being driven by driver holding such licence. So in
view of the decision of Division Bench of our own Hon'ble
High Court and also the decision of Supreme Court
referred at SI. No.1 Adv. for petitioners it is very much
,,,_,;- clear that RW1' is having valid DL as per Exh.D3 and the F
offending vehicle unladen weight is 3500 kgs. is certainly
was having effective and valid DL and so R3 has failed to
prove the issue No.3 and accordingly I answer the same
in the negative."
6. The High Court on an appeal preferred by the appellant G
herein opined :
' '
"Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company,
questioning the liability, contended that the driver did not
possess a valid licence to drive LMV. According to the
H
1065 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 1 S.C.R.

A respondents, the driver had driving licence to drive LMV,
a transport vehicle. According to the appellant, the vehicle
in question involved in the accident is a transport vehicle.
The said contention cannot be accepted by this Court, in
view of the fact that claimants are third parties even on the
B ground that there is violation of terms and conditions of
policy, the insurance company cannot be permitted to
contend that it has no liability. Accordingly, I do not see any
merit in this appeal." ,,
'
7. Mr. Vishnu Mehra, learned counsel appearing on behalf
C of the appellant would submit that the High Court committed a
serious error in passing the impugned judgment in so far as it
failed to take into consideration that a 'light motor vehicle' cannot
be a 'transport vehicle' within the meaning of the provisions of
the Act. It was submitted that for the purpose of grant of licence
D for driving a vehicle, an application has to be filed in Form No.4,
whereafter only a licence is granted in- Form No.6. Learned
counsel contended that the said forms have been prescribed in •
terms of Rules 14 and 16 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules,
1989, and on a perusal thereof as also the aforementioned
E Forms, it would be clear that a 'light motor vehicle' does not
answer the description of a 'transport vehicle'.
8. Mr. S.N. Bhat, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the contention
raised herein by the appellant has neither been raised before
F the Tribunal nor before the High Court. In any event, it was urged, i "
that keeping in view the definition of the "light motor vehicle" as
contained in Section 2(21) of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988 ("Act"
for short), a light goods carriage would come within the purview
thereof.
G
A 'light goods carriage' having not been defined in the Act,
the definition of the "light motor vehicle" clearly indicates that it
takes within its umbrage, both a transport vehicle and a non-
transport vehicle.
H Strong reliance has been placed in this behalf by the
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. v. ANNAPPA 1066
!RAPPA NESARIAAND ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]

• -1 learned counsel in Ashok Gangadhar Maratha vs. Oriental A
Insurance Company Ltd., [1999 (6) SCC 620].
9. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which was enacted to
consolidate and amend the law relating to motor vehicles, is a
complete code.
B
10. Section 2 of the Act provides for interpretation of the
. terms contained herein. It employs the words "unless the context
otherwise requires". Section 2(16) of the Act defines "heavy
goods vehicle" to mean any goods carriage the gross vehicle
weight of which, or a tractor or a road-roller the unladen weight c
of either of which, exceeds 12,000 kilograms.
11. Section 2(21) defines "light motor vehicle" and Section
2(23) defines "medium goods vehicle" as under:
"Light motor vehicle means a transport vehicle or omnibus
D
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 kilograms."
"Medium goods vehicle means any goods carriage other
than a light motor vehicle or a heavy goods vehicle." E
Section 3 of the Act is in the following terms:
"3. Necessity for driving licence.- (1) No person shall drive
a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an
A T effective driving licence issued to him authorising him to F
drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a transport
vehicle other than a motorcab 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." G
\ 12. The Central Government has framed Rules known as
The Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.
13. The word "Form" has been defined in Rule 2(e) to mean
a Form appended to the rules.
H
1067 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 1 S.C.R.

A "I Apply for a licence to enable me to drive vehicles of the
following description:
(d) Light motor vehicle
(e) Medium goods vehicle
B (g) Heavy goods vehicle
U) Motor vehicles of the following description: .... "
After amendment the relevant portion of Form 4 reads as
under:
c
"I Apply for a licence to enable me to drive vehicles of the
following description:
(d) Light motor vehicle

D (e) Transport vehicle
0) Motor vehicles of the following description: .... " ..-
14. Rule 14 prescribes for filing of an application in Form
4, for a licence to drive a motor vehicle, categorizing the same
E in nine types of vehicles.
Clause (e) provides for "Transport vehicle" which has been
substituted by G.S.R. 221 (E) with effect from 28.3.2001. Before
the amendment in 2001, the entries "medium good vehicle" and
"heavy goods vehicle" existed which have been substituted by
F "transport vehicle". As noticed hereinbefore, "Light Motor
Vehicles" also found place therein.
15. "Light Motor Vehicle" is defined in Section 2(21) and,
therefore, in view of the provision, as then existed, it included a
light transport vehicle. Form 6 provides for the manner in which
G the licence is to be granted, the relevant portion whereof read
as under: )
"Authorisation to drive transport vehicle
Number.................. . Date ........
H
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. v. ANNAPPA 1068
IRAPPA NESARIA AND ORS. [S.B. SINHA J.]
Authorised to drive transport vehicle with effect A
~ -1
from ....... Badge number .........
Signature ......................
...............................
Designation of the licensing B
authority
·• Name and designation of their
authority who conducted the
driving test." c
16. From what has been noticed herein before, it is evident
that 'transport vehicle' has now been substituted for 'medium
goods vehicle' and 'heavy goods vehicle'. The light motor vehicle
continued, at the relevant point of time, to cover both, 'light
passenger carriage vehicle' and 'light goods carriage vehicle'. D
'j.
~
A driver who had a valid licence to drive a light motor
vehicle, therefore, was authorised to drive a light goods vehicle
as well.
17. The amendments carried out in the Rules having a E
prospective operation, the licence held by the driver of the
vehicle in question cannot be said to be invalid in law.
18. For the reasons aforementioned there is no merit in
this appeal and it is dismissed with costs which we quantify at
,, 'y Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only). F

B.B.B. Appeal dismissed.