# M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd v. Rambha Devi & Ors

- **Citation:** 2024 INSC 840
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2024-11-06
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 841 of 2018
- **Bench:** Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Hrishikesh Roy, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/m-s-bajaj-alliance-general-insurance-co-ltd-v-rambha-devi-ors-37251
- **Pages:** 100

## Headnote

(i) Whether a driver holding a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) license
(for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight of less than 7,500 kgs)
as per Section 10(2)(d), which specifies 'Light Motor Vehicle', can
operate a 'Transport Vehicle' without obtaining specific authorization
under Section 10(2)(e) of the MV Act, specifically for the 'Transport
Vehicle' class; (ii) whether the second part of Section 3(1) which
emphasizes the necessity of a driving license for a 'Transport
Vehicle' overrides the definition of LMV in Section 2(21) of MV
Act? Is the definition of LMV contained in Section 2(21) of MV Act
unrelated to the licensing framework under the MV Act and the MV
Rules; (iii) whether the additional eligibility criteria prescribed in the
MV Act and MV Rules for 'transport vehicles' would apply to those
who are desirous of driving vehicles weighing below 7,500 kgs
and have obtained a license for LMV class under Section 10(2) (d)
of the MV Act; (iv) what is the effect of the amendment made by
virtue of Act 54 of 1994 w.e.f. 14.11.1994 which substituted four
classes under clauses (e) to (h) in Section 10 with a single class of
'Transport Vehicle' in Section 10(2)(e); (v) whether the decision in
Mukund Dewangan (2017) is per incuriam for not noticing certain
provisions of the MV Act and MV Rules.
Headnotes†
Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 - ss.10(2)(d), 10(2)(e), 2(21), 2(47) - On
reference, 3-Judge Bench in Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. [2017] 7 SCR 765 [Mukund Dewangan (2017)]
held that the holder of a license for a 'Light Motor Vehicle'
(LMV) class need not have a separate endorsement to drive
a 'transport vehicle' if it falls under the 'Light Motor Vehicle'
* Author
542
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
class i.e. below 7,500 kgs - However, two-judge Bench in M/s
Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi &
Ors. (2019) 12 SCC 816 observed that Mukund Dewangan (2017)
did not consider certain important provisions of the MV Act
and MV Rules, referred the matter to a larger bench of three
judges for reconsideration of the ratio in Mukund Dewangan
(2017) - Said three judge Bench further referred the matter to
a larger bench of five judges - A driver holding a Light Motor
Vehicle (LMV) license for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight
of less than 7,500 kgs, if can operate a 'Transport Vehicle'
without obtaining specific authorization therefor:
Held: Yes - For licensing purposes, LMVs and Transport Vehicles
are not entirely separate classes and both overlap - Thus, a driver
holding a license for LMV class u/s.10(2)(d) for vehicles with a gross
vehicle weight under 7,500 kg, is permitted to operate a 'Transport
Vehicle' without needing additional authorization u/s.10(2) (e)
specifically for the 'Transport Vehicle' class - In the absence of
any obtrusive omission, the decision in Mukund Dewangan (2017)
is not per incuriam even if did not consider certain provisions of
the MV Act and MV Rules and is upheld. [Paras 131(I), (II)]
Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 - ss.2(10), 3, 10(e) to (h), Chapter IIs.10(2)(e) - Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 - r.14 -
Form 4 - 'Transport Vehicle' in s.3 - Purpose - 1994 amendment
substituted four classes of 'medium goods vehicle', 'medium
passenger vehicle', 'heavy goods vehicle', and 'heavy
passenger vehicle' under clauses (e) to (h) in s.10 with a
single class of 'Transport Vehicle' in s.10(2)(e) - Effect - Plea
of insurance companies that in view of the 'transport vehicle'
having been specifically mentioned after the amendment, a
separate endorsement would be necessary to drive a 'transport
vehicle' and that even before the 1994 amendment, the second
part of s.3 always provided that a separate endorsement would
be necessary:
Held: The specific authorization does not mean that a person
holding an LMV license which covers 'Transport vehicle', would
be disentitled to drive a 'Transport Vehicle' - The emphasis in the
second part of Section 3 is in relation to Medium and Heavy Vehi

## Text

_Characters 0–39,940 of 209,304. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39940 for what follows._

[2024] 11 S.C.R. 541 : 2024 INSC 840
M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.
v.
Rambha Devi & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 841 of 2018)
06 November 2024
[Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI, Hrishikesh Roy,*
Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Pankaj Mithal and
Manoj Misra, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
(i) Whether a driver holding a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) license
(for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight of less than 7,500 kgs)
as per Section 10(2)(d), which specifies 'Light Motor Vehicle', can
operate a 'Transport Vehicle' without obtaining specific authorization
under Section 10(2)(e) of the MV Act, specifically for the 'Transport
Vehicle' class; (ii) whether the second part of Section 3(1) which
emphasizes the necessity of a driving license for a 'Transport
Vehicle' overrides the definition of LMV in Section 2(21) of MV
Act? Is the definition of LMV contained in Section 2(21) of MV Act
unrelated to the licensing framework under the MV Act and the MV
Rules; (iii) whether the additional eligibility criteria prescribed in the
MV Act and MV Rules for 'transport vehicles' would apply to those
who are desirous of driving vehicles weighing below 7,500 kgs
and have obtained a license for LMV class under Section 10(2) (d)
of the MV Act; (iv) what is the effect of the amendment made by
virtue of Act 54 of 1994 w.e.f. 14.11.1994 which substituted four
classes under clauses (e) to (h) in Section 10 with a single class of
'Transport Vehicle' in Section 10(2)(e); (v) whether the decision in
Mukund Dewangan (2017) is per incuriam for not noticing certain
provisions of the MV Act and MV Rules.
Headnotes†
Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 - ss.10(2)(d), 10(2)(e), 2(21), 2(47) - On
reference, 3-Judge Bench in Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. [2017] 7 SCR 765 [Mukund Dewangan (2017)]
held that the holder of a license for a 'Light Motor Vehicle'
(LMV) class need not have a separate endorsement to drive
a 'transport vehicle' if it falls under the 'Light Motor Vehicle'
* Author
542
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
class i.e. below 7,500 kgs - However, two-judge Bench in M/s
Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi &
Ors. (2019) 12 SCC 816 observed that Mukund Dewangan (2017)
did not consider certain important provisions of the MV Act
and MV Rules, referred the matter to a larger bench of three
judges for reconsideration of the ratio in Mukund Dewangan
(2017) - Said three judge Bench further referred the matter to
a larger bench of five judges - A driver holding a Light Motor
Vehicle (LMV) license for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight
of less than 7,500 kgs, if can operate a 'Transport Vehicle'
without obtaining specific authorization therefor:
Held: Yes - For licensing purposes, LMVs and Transport Vehicles
are not entirely separate classes and both overlap - Thus, a driver
holding a license for LMV class u/s.10(2)(d) for vehicles with a gross
vehicle weight under 7,500 kg, is permitted to operate a 'Transport
Vehicle' without needing additional authorization u/s.10(2) (e)
specifically for the 'Transport Vehicle' class - In the absence of
any obtrusive omission, the decision in Mukund Dewangan (2017)
is not per incuriam even if did not consider certain provisions of
the MV Act and MV Rules and is upheld. [Paras 131(I), (II)]
Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 - ss.2(10), 3, 10(e) to (h), Chapter IIs.10(2)(e) - Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 - r.14 -
Form 4 - 'Transport Vehicle' in s.3 - Purpose - 1994 amendment
substituted four classes of 'medium goods vehicle', 'medium
passenger vehicle', 'heavy goods vehicle', and 'heavy
passenger vehicle' under clauses (e) to (h) in s.10 with a
single class of 'Transport Vehicle' in s.10(2)(e) - Effect - Plea
of insurance companies that in view of the 'transport vehicle'
having been specifically mentioned after the amendment, a
separate endorsement would be necessary to drive a 'transport
vehicle' and that even before the 1994 amendment, the second
part of s.3 always provided that a separate endorsement would
be necessary:
Held: The specific authorization does not mean that a person
holding an LMV license which covers 'Transport vehicle', would
be disentitled to drive a 'Transport Vehicle' - The emphasis in the
second part of Section 3 is in relation to Medium and Heavy Vehicles
in the statutory scheme even prior to the 1994 amendment -
Second part of Section 3 pertains to a driving license for those
driving 'medium goods vehicle', 'medium passenger vehicle',
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
543
M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Rambha Devi & Ors.
'heavy goods vehicle', and 'heavy passenger vehicle' - Such an
interpretation is logical because medium and heavy vehicles would
require greater maneuverability and skill as compared to drivers
of the LMV class - The subsequent amendment in Section 10
makes this position even clearer - 'Transport Vehicle' primarily
targets vehicles exceeding 7,500 kgs, for the purpose of license
regime - The intention of the legislature was to simplify the licensing
framework for larger commercial vehicles and at the same time not
interdict a LMV license holder to also drive a transport vehicle -
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Annappa Irappa Nesaria [2008] 1
SCR 1061 holding that the 1994 amendment had a prospective
operation, partially overruled - 'Transport Vehicle', does not
exclude transport vehicles already classified as 'LMV', under
Section 10 - Thus, 'Transport vehicles' mentioned in Section 10
would cover only those vehicles whose gross vehicle weight is
above 7,500 kgs - Such an interpretation aligns with the broader
purpose of the amendments and ensures that the licensing regime
remains efficient and practical for vehicle owners and drivers -
Section 10 is to be read with Section 2(21) which defines a 'Light
Motor Vehicle'. [Paras 41, 42, 44.3, 45]
Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 - Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 -
Whether the additional eligibility criteria prescribed in the MV
Act and MV Rules for 'transport vehicles' would apply to those
who are desirous of driving vehicles weighing below 7,500 kgs:
Held: No - The additional eligibility criteria specified in the MV
Act and MV Rules will apply only to such vehicle ('medium goods
vehicle', 'medium passenger vehicle', 'heavy goods vehicle'
and 'heavy passenger vehicle'), whose gross weight exceeds
7,500 Kg - This interpretation on how the licensing regime is to
operate for drivers under the statutory scheme will not compromise
the road safety concerns and will also effectively address the
livelihood issues for drivers operating Transport Vehicles in legally
operating "Transport vehicles" (below 7,500 Kg), with their LMV
driving license. [Paras 131(III), 130]
Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 - ss.3(1), 2(21), 10 - Harmonious
construction - Various provisions were cited to contend that
the legislature had placed LMVs and Transport Vehicles under
separate classes and that the holder of a LMV license cannot
drive a Transport Vehicle without a separate endorsement -
Whether the second part of s.3(1) which emphasizes the
544
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
necessity of specific requirement of a driving license for a
'Transport Vehicle' overrides the definition of LMV in s.2(21) :
Held: No - Section 3 is not a special provision overriding the strict
and emphatic definition of LMV, given in Section 2(21) and the
separate class of 'Light Motor Vehicle' provided in Section 10 -
Section 2(21) uses the term 'means' and there is an affirmation of
certainty in the wordings of the definition and it is to be recognized
sensu stricto in a technical sense and must not be understood
loosely - Section 3 does not disentitle the LMV license holders
to drive transport vehicles of the permissible weight category -
To say otherwise would be incompatible and would render the
strict definition clause, sterile and a 'dead letter' - In view of a
harmonious construction of both sections, for LMV licence holders,
a separate endorsement under 'Transport Vehicle' class would
be unnecessary for driving LMV class of vehicles - Additional
licensing requirements will have no application for the LMV class
of vehicles but will be needed only for such 'Transport Vehicles',
which by virtue of their gross weight fall in the Medium and Heavy
category - This construction also fulfills the legislative purpose to
ensure road safety - Age restrictions outlined in Section 4, the
requirement of a medical certificate, and the criteria under Section 7
should reasonably apply only for the medium and heavy transport
vehicles whose gross weight will be above 7500 Kg - A person
holding a LMV license is equally competent to drive a Transport
Vehicle whose gross weight does not exceed 7,500 kgs - The
reference to 'transport vehicle' in Section 3(1) and other sections
of the Act and Rules apply to only those vehicles which fall beyond
the scope of the sensu stricto definition under Section 2(21) - This
interpretation would ensure that no provision or word is rendered
otiose and the licensing regime remains coherent with the legislative
intent. [Paras 74, 85]
Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 - The ratio in Mukund Dewangan
v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. [2017] 7 SCR 765 [Mukund
Dewangan (2017)], if per incuriam for not noticing inter alia
ss.4(1), 7, 14, second proviso to s.15, ss.180, 181 of the Motor
Vehicle Act, 1988 and Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989:
Held: No - Answering the reference, 3 Judge Bench in Mukund
Dewangan (2017) analysed key provisions of the Act and Rules
and rightly concluded inter alia that the holder of a license for a
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
545
M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Rambha Devi & Ors.
'Light Motor Vehicle' class need not have a separate endorsement
to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight
of which does not exceed 7500 kg or a motor car or tractor
or road-roller, the unladen weight of which does not exceed
7500 kg - Though, the judgment did not analyse the provisions
that distinguish transport and non-transport vehicles however, the
statutory scheme of Motor Vehicle Act is more nuanced than the
simple weight-based distinction made in the said judgment - The
Court also failed to notice ss.31(2) and (3) which specify 'Transport'
and 'Non-Transport' vehicles however, the judgment gave due
consideration to the important statutory provisions - The overlooked
provisions would not alter the eventual pronouncement - There
are no glaring error or omission that would alter the outcome of
the case. [Paras 113-115]
Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 - s.2(21) - Light Motor Vehicle (LMV)
'means' a 'Transport Vehicle' - 'means' - Meaning:
Held: As per the definition clause of LMV, it inter-alia 'means'
a 'Transport Vehicle' - The use of the word 'means' suggests
specifics - When the statute says that a word or a phrase shall
"mean" (instead of say "include"), it is quite certainly a 'hard and
fast', strict and exhaustive definition - There is no distinction
between the two classes of vehicles - Such a definition is an
explicit statement of the full connotation of a term and there is
no ambiguity. [Para 32]
Interpretation of Statutes - Importance of definition sections -
Discussed.
Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 - Purpose and objective - Discussed.
Interpretation of Statutes - Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 - Social
welfare legislation - Interpretation:
Held: 1988 Act is fundamentally a social welfare legislation providing
a mechanism for victims and their families to seek compensation
for loss or injury resulting from road accidents - Also, its provisions
regarding licensing and penalties for traffic violations serve the
broader purpose of promoting road safety - Thus, any interpretation
of its provisions must ensure a mechanism for timely compensation
and relief for victims of road accidents and also promote overall
road safety. [Para 15]
546
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 - s.2(21) - Strict interpretation of:
Held: A light motor vehicle would mean a transport vehicle, omnibus,
road roller, tractor, or motor car, provided the weight does not
exceed 7,500 kgs. [Para 35]
Interpretation of Statutes - Principles of statutory interpretation -
Discussed.
Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 - Compensation - Accidents involving
'transport vehicles' operated by individuals holding licenses
to drive 'light motor vehicles' - Payment of claims disputed
by insurance companies:
Held: Compensation must not be denied for minor technical
breaches of the licensing conditions - The emphasis on 'Transport
Vehicle' in the licensing scheme has to be understood only in the
context of the 'medium' and 'heavy' vehicles - This harmonious
construction also aligns with the objective of the 1994 amendment
in Section 10(2) to simplify the licensing procedure - This would
prevent insurance companies from taking a technical plea to defeat
a legitimate claim for compensation involving an insured vehicle
weighing below 7,500 kgs driven by a person holding a driving
license of a 'Light Motor Vehicle' class. [Paras 76, 126, 127]
Judgments - Per incuriam - When:
Held: A decision is per incuriam only when the overlooked
statutory provision or legal precedent is central to the legal issue
in question and might have led to a different outcome if those
overlooked provisions were considered - It must be an inconsistent
provision and a glaring case of obtrusive omission - The doctrine
of per incuriam applies strictly to the ratio decidendi and not to
obiter dicta - If a court doubts the correctness of a precedent, the
appropriate step is to either follow the decision or refer it to a larger
Bench for reconsideration - It has to be shown that some part of
the decision was based on a reasoning which was demonstrably
wrong, for applying the principle of per incuriam - In exceptional
cases, where by obvious inadvertence or oversight, a judgment
fails to notice a plain statutory provision or obligatory authority
running counter to the reasoning and result reached, the principle
of per incuriam may apply. [Para 111]
Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 - Impact of Mukund Dewangan (2017)
that allowed Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) license holders to drive
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
547
M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Rambha Devi & Ors.
Transport Vehicles below 7500 Kg, on road safety, if any - Plea
of Insurance Companies that if Mukund Dewangan (2017) is
not interfered with, unfit drivers will start plying Transport
Vehicles putting at risk the lives of thousands of people:
Held: Rejected - No empirical data was produced to show that road
accidents in India have increased as a direct result of drivers with
LMV license, plying a transport vehicle of LMV class of vehicles
whose gross weight is within 7500 Kg - Road safety is indeed
an important objective of the MV Act but Court's reasoning must
not be founded on unverified assumptions without any empirical
data - While the Court is mindful of issues of road safety, the task
of crafting policy lies within the domain of the legislature - Court
cannot dictate policy decisions or rewrite laws. [Para 117]
Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 - Whether a driver holding a license
for a 'Light motor vehicle' can operate a 'Transport Vehicle'
without obtaining a specific endorsement - Various conflicting
judgments for over 25 years:
Held: Judgments in Ashok Gangadhar Maratha, Nagashetty, S.
Iyyapan and Kulwant Singh holding that a separate endorsement
for a 'transport vehicle' are not necessary are upheld however,
judgments in Prabhu Lal, Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir and
Angad Kol which held otherwise are overruled. [Para 96.3]
Words and Phrases - "per incuriam" - Discussed.
Case Law Cited
New India Assurance Company v. Prabhu Lal [2007] 12 SCR 724 :
(2008) 1 SCC 696; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Roshanben
Rahemansha Fakir [2008] 8 SCR 328 : (2008) 8 SCC 253; Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Angad Kol [2009] 2 SCR 695 : (2009) 11
SCC 356 - overruled.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Annappa Irappa Nesaria [2008] 1
SCR 1061 : (2008) 3 SCC 464 - partially overruled.
Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. [2017] 7 SCR
765 : (2017) 14 SCC 663; Ashok Gangadhar Maratha v. Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. [1999] Supp. 2 SCR 202 : (1999) 6 SCC 620;
Nagashetty v. United India Insurance Co [2001] Supp. 1 SCR
656 : (2001) 8 SCC 56; S. Iyyapan v. United India Insurance Co.
Ltd [2013] 7 SCR 45 : (2013) 7 SCC 62; Kulwant Singh v. Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd (2015) 2 SCC 186 - affirmed.
548
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. [2016] 3 SCR
1075 : (2016) 4 SCC 298; M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance
Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi & Ors. (2019) 12 SCC 816; Bajaj
Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi [2023] 12
SCR 241 : (2023) 4 SCC 723; Bajaj Alliance General Insurance
Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi (2024) 1 SCC 818; Nathi Devi v.
Radha Devi Gupta [2004] Supp. 6 SCR 1141 : (2005) 2 SCC
271; Aphali Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra [1989]
Supp. 1 SCR 129 : (1989) 4 SCC 378; Skandia Insurance Co.
Ltd. v. Kokilaben Chandravadan [1987] 2 SCR 752 : AIR 1987
SC 1184; Sohan Lal Passi v. Sesh Reddy [1996] Supp. 3 SCR
647 : AIR 1996 SC 2627; Gurmej Singh S v. Sardar Pratap Singh
Kairon AIR 1960 SC 122; R S Raghunath v. State of Karnataka
[1991] Supp. 1 SCR 387 : AIR 1992 SC 81; Union of India v.
Elphinstone Spg. and Wvg. Co. Ltd. [2001] 1 SCR 221 : (2001) 4
SCC 139; Rajasthan SRTC v. Santosh [2013] 3 SCR 720 : (2013)
7 SCC 107; P. Kasilingam v. PSG College of Technology [1995] 2
SCR 1061 : AIR 1995 SC 1395; Punjab Land Development and
Reclamation Corpn Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court [1990]
3 SCR 111 : (1990) 3 SCC 682; Sultana Begum v. Prem Chand
Jain [1996] Supp. 9 SCR 707 : 1997 (1) SCC 373; Lord Herschell
LC in Institute of Patent Agents & Ors. v. Joseph Lockwood 1894
A.C. 347 at 360; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh
[2004] 1 SCR 180 : (2004) 3 SCC 297; Madan and Co. v. Wazir
Jaivir Chand [1988] Supp. 3 SCR 983 : (1989) 1 SCC 264; Life
Insurance Corporation v. Escorts [1985] Supp. 3 SCR 909 :
1986 (2) SCC 264; Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar
AIR 1955 SC 661; Mamleshwar Prasad v. Kanhaiya Lal [1975]
3 SCR 834 : (1975) 2 SCC 232; A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak
[1988] Supp. 1 SCR 1 : (1988) 2 SCC 602; MCD v. Gurnam
Kaur [1988] Supp. 2 SCR 929 : (1989) 1 SCC 101; Punjab Land
Development & Reclamation Corpn. Ltd. v. Labour Court [1990]
3 SCR 111 : (1990) 3 SCC 682; N.Bhargavan Pillai v. State of
Kerala [2004] Suppl. 1 SCR 444 : (2004) 13 SCC 217; State of
M.P. v. Narmada Bachao Andolan [2011] 11 SCR 678 : (2011) 7
SCC 639; Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd. v. Jindal Exports Ltd. [2001]
3 SCR 479 : (2001) 6 SCC 356; State of Bihar v. Kalika Kuer
[2003] 3 SCR 919 : (2003) 5 SCC 448; Sundeep Kumar Bafna
v. State of Maharashtra [2014] 4 SCR 486 : (2014) 16 SCC 623;
Shah Faesal v. Union of India [2020] 3 SCR 1115 : (2020) 4
SCC 1 - referred to.
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
549
M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Rambha Devi & Ors.
Powdrill v. Watson (1995) 2 AC 394; Young v. Bristol Aeroplane Co.
Ltd. 1944 KB 718 at 729 : (1944) 2 All ER 293 at 300; Lancaster
Motor Co. (London) Ltd. v. Bremith Ltd. (1941) 1 KB 675 : (1941)
2 All ER; Bryers v. Canadian Pacific Steamships Ltd. (1957) 1 QB
134 : (1956) 3 All ER 560 (CA) Per Singleton; Canadian Pacific
Steamships Ltd. v. Bryers 1958 AC 485 : (1957) 3 All ER 572; A.
and J. Mucklow Ltd. v. IRC, 1954 Ch 615 : (1954) 2 All ER 508
(CA); Morelle Ltd. v. Wakeling, (1955) 2 QB 379 : (1955) 1 All
ER 708 (CA); Bonsor v. Musicians' Union 1954 Ch 479 : (1954)
1 All ER 822 (CA); Morelle LD v. Wakeling, (1955) 2 QB 379;
Gough v. Gough [(1891) 2 QB 665 : 65 LT 110] - referred to.
Books and periodicals cited
George Carlin, 'Carlin on Campus' (HBO, 1984); Law Commission
of India; Law Commission of India, Access of Exclusive Forum for
Victims of Motor Accidents under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (119th
Report, February, 1987); Justice G.P. Singh: Principles of Statutory
Interpretation (Lexis Nexis, 2016); Halsbury's Laws of England (4th
Edn.) Vol. 26: Judgment and Orders: Judicial Decisions as Authorities
(pp. 297-98, para 578); Essays in Honour of the Supreme Court
of India (Oxford University Press 2000); Anuj Bhuwania, 'Courting
the People-Public Interest Litigation in Post Emergency India'
(Cambridge University Press 2017); P.J. Fitzgerald(Ed), 'Salmond on
Jurisprudence' (12th edn, Sweet and Maxwell 1966); Motor Vehicle
Aggregator Guidelines, 2020 - referred to.
List of Acts
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939; Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989;
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; English Road Traffic Act, 1930.
List of Keywords
Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) license; Vehicles with gross vehicle
weight of less than/below 7,500 kgs; Transport Vehicle; Driving
license; Learner's licenses; Licensing; 1994 amendment; Separate
endorsement; Specific authorization; Additional authorization;
Driver; Reference; Per incuriam; 'medium goods vehicle'; 'medium
passenger vehicle'; 'heavy goods vehicle'; 'heavy passenger
vehicle'; Commercial vehicles; Harmonious construction; Stare
decisis; Road safety; Public welfare; Motor vehicles; Social welfare
legislation; Compensation; Road accidents; Insured vehicles;
Insurance companies; Policy domain; Transportation policy;
Transportation sector.
550
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 841 of 2018
From the Judgment and Order dated 04.08.2017 of the High Court
of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in SBCMA No. 5127 of 2011
With
SLP(C) Nos. 10918, 9604 and 9613 of 2018, Diary Nos. 24834 and
25256 of 2018, SLP(C) No. 24671 of 2018, Diary Nos. 32753, 32756,
37055 and 39059 of 2018, SLP(C) No. 426 of 2019, SLP(C) Nos.
505-506 of 2019, SLP(C) No. 17506 of 2018, Diary Nos. 23638,
24137, 24530 and 24534 of 2018, SLP(C) Nos. 5958, 8918-8919
and 11503-11504 of 2019, SLP(C) No. 8277 of 2020, SLP(C) Nos.
8123-8124 of 2022, SLP(C) Nos. 14645-14646 and 35472-35473 of
2017, SLP(C) No. 6055 of 2018, SLP(C) Nos. 18849, 20449, 21547
and 23017-23018 of 2019, Civil Appeal Nos. 8001-8002 of 2024,
SLP(C) No. 766 of 2020, SLP(C) Nos. 24545 and 30601 of 2019,
SLP(C) No. 696 of 2021, Civil Appeal Nos. 1477, 842, 1479, 483,
1506 and 1478 of 2018, Diary No. 40406 of 2017, Civil Appeal No.
1476 of 2018, Diary No. 41949 of 2017, SLP(C) Nos. 2684-2685,
597 and 524 of 2018, Diary No. 2524 of 2018, SLP(C) Nos. 1924219244 of 2018, Diary No. 23636 of 2018, SLP(C) No. 28906 of 2018,
13315, 14523-14524 of 2019, Diary No. 37270 of 2017, Civil Appeal
No.1475 of 2018, SLP(C) No. 5065, 10459, 9908 and 6668 of 2018,
Diary No. 4869, 6119 and 6264 of 2018, SLP(C) Nos. 8816, 9607,
9610, 9612, 9606 and 9609 of 2018, Diary Nos. 9963, 9970 and 990
of 2018, SLP(C) Nos. 5193, 5188, 9611, 9608 and 9605 of 2018,
SLP(C) Nos. 20221, 19921 and 28961 of 2023
Appearances for Parties
Tushar Mehta, SG, Jayant Bhushan, Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, Anand
Sanjay M. Nuli, Ms. Anita Shenoy, Sr. Advs., Ashutosh Ghade, Nimit
Bhimjiyani, Ms. Sneha Balapure, Ms. Sakshi Mittal, Navneet Kumar,
Harsh Sharan, Saurabh Tiwari, Parijat Kishore, Amit Kumar Singh, Ms.
K Enatoli Sema, Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Prang Newmai, Abhishek
Gola, Viresh B. Saharya, Rishabh Mathur, Akshat Agarwal, P.K. Seth,
Ms. Manjeet Chawla, Mrs. Usha Pant Kukreti, Ms. Meenakshi Midha,
Ms. Garv Singh, Aditya Parashar, Chander Shekhar Ashri, Ms. Hetu
Arora Sethi, Rahul Jain, Anirudh Bhat, Rajeev Maheshwaranand Roy,
Dr. Meera Agarwal, Ramesh Chandra Mishra, Anil Kumar, Sandeep Jha,
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
551
M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Rambha Devi & Ors.
Ram Ekbal Roy, Ms. Priyanka Das, Ms. Neha Das, Aman Nihal, Ravi
Shankar Ravi, Vikas Bharti, Binay Kumar Das, Raj Kishor Choudhary,
Shakeel Ahmed, Paras Nath Singh, Ms. Pratibha Singh, Abhishek
Kumar Gola, Ramneek Singh, Roop Chaudhary, Arun Kumar Nagar,
Ms. Savita, Ms. Supriya, Sudhir Naagar, Ms. Amrreeta Swaarup, Gaurav
Malhotra, Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Ms. Jyoti Kaushik, Manjunath Meled,
Sandeep Sharma, Mrs. Vijayalaxmi Udapudi, Ganesh Kumar R., Sukant
Vikram, Yojit Mehra, Amartya Bhushan, Tushar Bhushan, Ketan Paul,
Sanjay Kumar Dubey, Shuchi Singh, Rakesh Kumar Tewari, Krishna
Kant Dubey, Ujjwal Kumar Dubey, Vivek Kumar Pandey, Aman Kumar,
Jainendra Kumar, Nirmit Bhalla, Devendra Kumar Mishra, Yasharth
Kant, Ms. Sonal Kushwah, Suryaansh Kishan Razdan, Jagdish
Chandra, Niteen Kumar Sinha, Vishal Meghwal, Ms. Aishwarya Sinha,
Ms. Kirti Sinha, Ms. Ankita Chaudhary, Parmod Kumar Vishnoi, Kumar
Prashant, Avnish Dave, Vaibhav Dwivedi, Raghav Sharma, Shreyas
Balaji, Ram Lal Roy, Shiv Singh Yadav, Salil Paul, Sahil Paul, Sandeep
Dayal, Ms. Kanupriya Mehta, Niranjan Sahu, Uma Kanta Mishra, Ms.
Apoorva Sharma, Debabrata Dash, Anilendra Pandey, Manoj Kumar,
Rajeev Kumar Ranjan, Ms. Priya Kashyap, Brijesh Pandey, Mallikarjun
S. Mylar, Ashok Bannidinni, Ms. Betsara Mylliemngap, Tripurari Ray,
Balwant Singh Billowria, Nithyananda Murthy P, Ms. Bhanu Prabha,
Vivekanand Singh, Anirudh Ray, Rajinder Singh, Ms. Shilpa Singh,
Ms. Shalini Kaul, Pushpinder Singh, Kumar Kartikay, Sukhmandeep
Singh, Harsh Wadhwani, Nishanth Patil, Ayush P Shah, Vignesh
Adithiya S, Sushil Kumar Sharma, Pahlad Singh Sharma, Virendra
Kumar, Vikas Kakkar, Ms. Ankhi Sarkar, Ms. Akhila Wali, Suraj Kaushik,
Nanda Kumar K. B., Dharm Singh, Shiva Swaroop, M/s. Nuli & Nuli,
Devvrat, Ms. Harshita Sharma, Ms. Swati Setia, Ms. Charu Sangwan,
Anup Kumar, Abhijit Banerjee, Devesh Kumar Agnihotri, Nitin Jain, Ms.
Tanya Swarup, Shivam Singh, Manish Kumar, Ms. Bahuli Sharma,
Ishwar Singh, Ms. Shaswati Parhi, Suyash Vyas, Divyansh Mishra,
Gopal Singh, Subhro Sanyal, Kaustubh Shukla, C.B. Gururaj, Prakash
Ranjan Nayak, Animesh Dubey, Debasis Jena, Apoorv Nautiyal,
Anuj Bhandari, Rajat Gupta, Gaurav Jain, Mrs. Disha Bhandari, Mrs.
Anjali Doshi, Sharanagouda Patil, Mrs. Supreeta Patil, M/s. S-legal
Associates, K.R. Karthik, Pradeep Gaur, Amit Gaur, Ms. Sweta Sinha,
Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Ms. Fauzia Shakil, Vivek Mathur, Siddharth
Agarwal, Ms. Mohini Priya, Ms. Namrata Sarah Caleb, Ms. Parita,
Ms. Ayushma Awasthi, C. George Thomas, P.B. Suresh, Advs. for
the appearing parties.
552
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Hrishikesh Roy, J.
Title*
Page No.
A.
Background
 ... 6
B.
Submissions on behalf of Insurance Companies
 ... 15
C.
Submissions on behalf of Claimants
 ... 22
D.
Issues
 ... 26
E.
Discussion
 ... 27
(i)
The Purpose of MV Act
(ii)
Brief Overview of MV Act & MV Rules
(iii) Construing Section 2(21), 3 & 10 of MV Act
(iv) Whether the interpretation in Mukund
Dewangan (2017) renders most provisions
of the MV Act & MV Rules otiose?
(a) Harmonious Construction
(b) Interpretation must not lead to impractical
outcomes
(v)
Discussion on the 8 Conflicting judgments
(vi) Is Mukund Dewangan (2017) per incuriam?
F.
Impact on Road Safety
 ... 114
G.
Conclusion
 ... 121
1.
On the perception of the capability of drivers on the road, the comedian
George Carlin made the humorous observation to the effect that:
'Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an
idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?'.1 Concerns
about road safety are often shaped by individual biases without the
opinion being founded on any empirical data. It is easy to overlook the
full spectrum of factors that contribute to road safety. In this context,
* Ed. Note: Pagination as per the original Judgment.
1
George Carlin, 'Carlin on Campus' (HBO, 1984) <https://www.primevideo.com/detail/George-CarlinCarlin-On-Campus/0ND548YT8ZBNFE9A56MJWHZ8PK> accessed 2 November 2024
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
553
M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Rambha Devi & Ors.
the pivotal legal issue that this Constitution bench of five judges has
to decide is whether under the existing legal framework of the Motor
Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short "MV Act") and the Central Motor Vehicles
Rules, 1989 (for short, "MV Rules"), a person holding a license for
a 'Light Motor Vehicle' class, can drive a 'Transport Vehicle' without
a specific endorsement, provided the 'Gross Vehicle Weight' of
the vehicle does not exceed 7,500 kgs?. Besides road safety, the
livelihood concern of a large number of drivers of transport vehicles
in India also requires an answer from the bench. In this judgment,
let us name our driver Sri, who is a 'Transport Vehicle' driver. As
can be appreciated, Sri spends maximum hours behind the driving
wheels and is arguably the most experienced one amongst Indian
drivers, carrying goods and people, from destination A to B and so on.
A.
BACKGROUND
2.
Before we set out the relevant provisions, a brief overview of the legal
journey that has led us to the above quest would be appropriate.
The vexed question was first noticed by a 2-judge Bench of Justice
Kurian Joseph and Justice Arun Mishra in Mukund Dewangan v.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.2 (for short "Mukund Dewangan(2016)".
It took note of the conflicting views in 8 different judgments of this
Court and framed the following questions for determination by a
3-judge bench:
"59.1. 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?
59.2. Whether "transport vehicle" and "omnibus" the "gross
vehicle weight" of either of which does not exceed 7500
kg would be a "light motor vehicle" and also motor car or
tractor or a roadroller, "unladen weight" of which does not
exceed 7500 kg and holder of licence to drive class of
"light motor vehicle" as provided in Section 10(2)(d) would
be competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the
"gross vehicle weight" of which does not exceed 7500 kg
or a motor car or tractor or roadroller, the "unladen weight"
of which does not exceed 7500 kg?
2
(2016) 4 SCC 298
554
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
59.3. What is the effect of the amendment made by virtue
of Act 54 of 1994 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 insertion of the expression
"transport vehicle" under Section 10(2)(e) is related to the
said substituted classes only or it also excluded transport
vehicle of light motor vehicle class from the purview of
Sections 10(2)(d) and 2(41) of the Act?
59.4. What is the effect of amendment of Form 4 as to
operation of the provisions contained in Section 10 as
amended in the year 1994 and whether procedure to obtain
driving licence for transport vehicle of class of "light motor
vehicle" has been changed?"
3.
Speaking through Justice Arun Mishra, the reference was answered
by a 3-Judge Bench of Justice Arun Mishra, Justice Amitava Roy,
and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul in Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd.3 (for short "Mukund Dewangan (2017)"). The Bench
concluded that the holder of a license for a 'Light Motor Vehicle' class
need not have a separate endorsement to drive a 'transport vehicle'
if it falls under the 'Light Motor Vehicle' class i.e. below 7,500 kgs.
The reference was answered as under:
"60.1 'Light motor vehicle' as defined in section 2(21)
of the Act would include a transport vehicle as per the
weight prescribed in section 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.
60.2. A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle
weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg. would
be a light motor vehicle 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
3
[2017] 7 SCR 765 : (2017) 14 SCC 663
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
555
M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Rambha Devi & Ors.
competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the
gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg. or
a motor car or tractor or road-roller, the "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 of light 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.
60.3. 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 10(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 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.
60.4. The effect of amendment of Form 4 by insertion of
"transport 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 without
any endorsement to that effect."
[emphasis supplied]
4.
However, the above pronouncement did not put the matter to rest.
On 3.5.2018, a two-judge Bench comprising Justice Kurian Joseph
& Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar in M/s. Bajaj Alliance General
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi & Ors.4 noted that while deciding
4
(2019) 12 SCC 816
556
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
the vexed question in Mukund Dewangan (2017), the 3 Judge-bench
had not considered important provisions of the MV Act and MV Rules.
The bench noted that the following significant provisions were not
placed before the Court in Mukund Dewangan (2017):
"3. It is the submission of Shri Jayant Bhushan and Shri
Joy Basu, learned Senior Counsel that certain distinct
provisions pertaining specifically to transport vehicles have
unfortunately not been brought to the notice of the Court:
1. Section 4(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter
referred to as "the Act") provides that the minimum age of
holding a driving licence for a motor vehicle is 18 years.
Section 4(2) provides that no person under the age of
20 years shall drive a transport vehicle in a public place.
2. Section 7 provides that no person can be granted a
learner's licence to drive a transport vehicle unless he
has held a driving licence to drive a light motor vehicle
for at least one year.
3. Section 14 deals with the currency of licence to drive
motor vehicles. A driving licence issued or renewed under
this Act, in case a licence to drive a transport vehicle
will be effective for a period of three years. The proviso
to Section 14(2)(a) provides that in case of a licence to
drive a transport vehicle carrying goods of dangerous or
hazardous nature, it shall be effective for a period of one
year. However, in case of any other licence, it would be
effective for a period of 20 years.
4. Rule 5 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989
(hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") makes a medical
certificate issued by a registered medical practitioner
mandatory in case of a transport vehicle, whereas for a
non-transport vehicle, only a self-declaration is sufficient.
5. Rule 31, specifically sub-rules (2), (3) and (4) provide
for a difference in the syllabus and duration of training
between transport and non-transport vehicles.
It is also submitted that in these provisions, there does
not appear to be any exception carved out for transport
vehicles which come in the light motor vehicle category."
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
557
M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Rambha Devi & Ors.
5.
Being a two-judge bench, the Court deemed it appropriate to refer
the prayer itself for reconsideration of the ratio in Mukund Dewangan
(2017) to a larger bench of three judges. Subsequently, a threeJudge bench of Justice U.U. Lalit, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, and
Justice P.S. Narasimha on 8.3.20225 noted that the referral order
rightly observed that certain provisions of the MV Act and MV Rules
were not noticed in Mukund Dewangan (2017). The 3-judge bench
flagged certain additional provisions that were not noticed in Mukund
Dewangan (2017). Since such a view was expressed by a Bench of
equal strength, it was considered appropriate to refer the matter to
a larger bench of five judges. The reference order reads as under:
"5. Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Mr. Gopal Sankaranaryanan,
Mr. Siddhartha Dave, learned Senior Advocates as
well as Mr. Amit Singh, Ms. Archana Pathak Dave,
Mr. Kaustubh Shukla, Ms. Meenakshi Midha and Mr.
Rajesh Kumar Gupta, learned Advocates, appearing for
Insurance Companies have invited our attention to few
other provisions, namely, the second proviso to Section
15 and Sections 180 and 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 apart from those mentioned in the referral order.
It is submitted that though Section 3 was quoted in the
decision in Mukund Dewangan (supra), the latter part of
Section 3 and the effect thereof was not noticed by the
Court. The latter part of said Section 3 stipulates that "no
person shall so drive a transport vehicle other than the
motor cab or motor cycle hired for his own use or rented
under any scheme made under any scheme made under
sub-section (2) of Section 75 unless his driving licence
specifically entitles him so to do."
6. It is thus submitted that the provisions contemplate
different regimes for those having licence to drive Light
Motor Vehicles as against those licensed to drive Transport
Vehicles.
7. Having bestowed our attention to the contentions
raised by the learned counsel and the issues which fall
for consideration, in our view, the referral order was right
5
Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi (2023) 4 SCC 723
558
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
in stating that certain provisions were not noticed by this
Court in its decision in Mukund Dewangan (supra). We are
prima facie of the view that in terms of the referral order,
the controversy in question needs to be re visited. Sitting
in a combination of Three Judges, we deem it appropriate
to refer the matters to a larger bench of more than Three
Judges as the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India may deem
appropriate to constitute"
6.
For the benefit of the claimants, the reference order also pertinently
notes that:
"9. Before we part, we must note that all the learned
counsel appearing for the Insurance companies have fairly
submitted that the compensation in terms of the directions
issued by the Courts below, that is to say, in following the
principles laid down in Mukund Dewangan (supra) has
either been paid in full or shall be paid in terms of such
directions. Their statements are recorded."
7.
Thus, the correctness of Mukund Dewangan (2017) is to be evaluated
during this reference. At this juncture, we may note that during the
final stage of hearing before this Court on 20.7.2023, it was brought
to our notice that the Union Government had accepted the decision in
Mukund Dewangan (2017), by issuing notifications dated 16.4.2018
and 31.3.2021. The Rules were also amended to bring them in
conformity with the said judgment. Considering such compliance,
we sought the assistance of the learned Attorney General, Mr. R.
Venkataramani and desired to elicit the specific stand of the Union
Government on the issue.