Court: Supreme Court of India.
Case Type: Civil Appeal.
Case No.: 5826 of 2011.
Appellant: Mukund Dewangan.
Respondent: Oriental Insurance Company Limited.
Bench:
1. Justice Arun Mishra.
2. Justice Amitava Roy.
3. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul.
Statutes Referred:
1. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘The Act’).
2. Central Motor Vehicles Rule, 1989 (for short, ‘the Rules of 1989’).
Cases Referred:
1. Venkataswamy Naidu R. v. Narasram Naraindas AIR 1966 SC 361.
2. District Mining Officer vs Tata Iron and Steel Co. AIR 2001 (7) SCC 358.
3. Kannai Lal Sur v. Paramnidhi Sadhukhan AIR 1967 SC 907.
4. Reserve Bank of India v. Pearless General Finance and Investment Co. (1987) 1 SCC 424.
5. Poppatlal Shah v. State of Madras AIR 1953 SC 274.
6. Atma Ram Mittal v. Ishwar Singh Punia (1988) 4 SCC 284.
7. Reserve Bank of India v. Pearless General Finance and Investment Co. (1987) 1 SCC 424.
8. Union of India v. Elphinstone Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd. & Ors. (2001) 4 SCC 139.
9. National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh & Ors. (2004) 3 SCC 297.
Facts: 1. Licences were issued for a number of vehicle categories such as inter alia light motor vehicle [Section 10 2(d)], medium goods vehicle [Section 10 2(e)], medium passenger motor vehicle [Section 10 2(f)], heavy goods vehicle [Section 10 2(g)], heavy
passenger motor vehicle [Section 10 2(h). The ‘transport vehicle’ was not a separate class, and it was under Section 10 2(d) to Section 10 2(h). 2. To simplify the procedure for obtaining a licence, categories like medium vehicle goods, medium passenger motor vehicle, heavy goods vehicle and heavy passenger motor vehicle were omitted. A new category called ‘Transport Vehicle’ was inserted
under Section 10 2(e).
3. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 was thus amended on 14/11/1994.
4. Form no. 4 of the Rules of 1989, in which the application for a licence was required to be made, continued to mention four different categories: medium-gender vehicle, medium passenger motor vehicle, heavy goods vehicle, and heavy passenger motor
vehicle. Form no. 4 was amended only on 28/03/2001, after which it mentioned ‘Transport Vehicle’ and became consistent with the 1994 amendment made to the Motor Vehicles Act 1989.
Issue:
1. Is a driver who has a licence to drive a ‘light motor vehicle’ and is driving a ‘transport vehicle’ of the same class required to additionally obtain an endorsement to drive a transport vehicle?
The contention by the Appellant:
1. The appellant possesses a licence to drive a light motor vehicle.
2. Additional endorsement should not be required as the transport vehicle that the appellant was of the same category as a light motor vehicle.
The contention by the Respondent:
1. The appellant has no claim to the insurance as he did not possess the special endorsement to drive a transport vehicle. 2. This was negligence on the part of the appellant.
Obiter Dicta:
1. A transport vehicle whose gross weight or unladen weight does not exceed 7500 kilograms is a light motor vehicle according to Section 2(21) read with Section 10 2(d) of the Act.
2. Section 3 of the Act provides that a person must obtain authorisation to drive a ‘transport vehicle’. This means that special authorisation would be required for a transport vehicle once a licence for light motor vehicle is issued.
3. Vehicles whose gross weight or unladen weight exceeds 12000 kilograms are termed as heavy passenger vehicles or heavy goods vehicles, respectively.
4. A medium goods vehicle means any goods vehicle that is neither a light motor vehicle nor a heavy goods vehicle. A medium passenger motor vehicle means any public service vehicle or private service vehicle or educational institution bus other than a
bicycle, invalid carriage, light motor vehicle or heavy passenger motor vehicle.
5. 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 and section 2(24) medium passenger motor vehicle. It would not include the ‘light motor vehicle’, which means transport vehicle also of them weight specified in Section 2(21). If the 1994 amendment intended to take transport vehicle out of the category of light motor vehicle, it was necessary to amend section 2(21) and section 10 2(d) of the Act. But this was not done.
6. Thus, by the amended Section 10 2(e) and the amended form no.4, instead of the four different categories of medium and heavy vehicles, a person was only required to apply for only once to drive the four categories mentioned above of medium and heavy vehicles.
7. Rule 8 of the 1989 Rules mentions that the minimum educational qualification required to obtain a driving licence for a transport vehicle was 8th Standard. The rule did not apply to the renewal of a driving licence to drive a transport vehicle and/or
addition of an additional class of transport vehicle to the driving licence already obtained the commencement of the Motor Vehicles Act, 2007. Rule 8 was inserted w.e.f 10/4/2007.
8. 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 another category of the
transport vehicle to be added is only as in the amended provision 10(2)(e).
9. Licences are issued under form 6 according to Rule 16 of the Rules of 1989. Form 6 mentions’ light motor vehicle’ and ‘transport motor vehicle’ separately.
10. The application for an addition to the driving licence is to be filed under form 8 according to Rule 17. Even in this form, ‘light motor vehicle’ and ‘transport motor vehicle’ are defined separately.
11. Rule 34 deals with the trade certificate. Rule 34(2) distinguishes light motor vehicle, medium goods vehicle, medium passenger vehicle, heavy goods vehicle and heavy passenger motor vehicle. All vehicles must conform to the provisions of the Rules made under Section 110 of the Act. 12. The State Government is required to maintain a registry of motor vehicles Rule 75 as provided in form 41, which includes gross weight, unladen weight, etc. The Central Government has the authority to form rules under Section 27 of the Act regarding
minimum qualification, forms, contents of licence, etc.
13. 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 a 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 the holder of licence to drive a light motor vehicle. No separate endorsement is required to drive such a transport vehicle.
14. A 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) 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 legislature has not amended the aforesaid provisions, it is not for the Court to legislate by making insertion in section 10(2) (e).
15. If a person 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 a different type.
– When a driver is authorised to drive a vehicle, he can drive it irrespective of whether it is used for a private purpose or purpose of hire or reward or for carrying the goods in the said vehicle.
Judgement:
1. If a driver possesses a licence to drive a ‘light motor vehicle’ and if the driver is driving a ‘transport vehicle’ of the same category, no additional endorsement is required.
Rationale:
1. 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 light motor vehicle class.
2. Section 10 2(d) continues to specify light motor vehicles. 3. Rule 8 refers to the addition of transport vehicle to light motor vehicle category; otherwise, no purpose would be left behind the 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 10(2)(e).
4. In forms 4, 6, and 8, the term ‘transport vehicle, has to be understood for categories of vehicle for which the amended section 10 2(e) was inserted.
5. 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 act as a legislature.
6. When a person is granted a licence to drive a light motor vehicle, he can drive either a car or a jeep, and it is not necessary that he must have a driving licence both for car and jeep separately.
Conclusion:
While interpreting a legislative provision, the Legislature’s intention, motive, and the philosophy of the relevant provisions, the goals to be achieved by enacting the same have to be taken into consideration.
.
