# MUKUND DEWANGAN v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

- **Citation:** [2017] 7 S.C.R. 765
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2017
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 5826of2011
- **Bench:** Arun Mishra, Amttava Roy, Sanjay Kishan Kaul
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/mukund-dewangan-v-oriental-insurance-company-limited-32129
- **Pages:** 58

## Headnote

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:
A
B
ss.3, 10(2), 2(21) - Transport vehicle - Whether a driver who c
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 - 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.
D
E
F
G
H
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
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.
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
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
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

## Text

_Characters 0–39,343 of 125,830. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39343 for what follows._

[2017] 7 S.C.R. 765
MUKUND DEWANGAN
v.
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
(Civil Appeal No. 5826of2011)
JULY03,2017
[ARUN MISHRA, AMTTAVA ROY AND
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:
A
B
ss.3, 10(2), 2(21) - Transport vehicle - Whether a driver who c
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 - 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.
D
E
F
G
H
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
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.
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
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
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
MUKUND DEWANGAN v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED
licences to drive. Section 10 was amended in the year 1994 by
virtue of Amendment Act 54of1994. It is apparent from the preamended 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 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
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
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
. 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
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,
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
767
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
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
B
c
'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 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 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
E
F
G
H
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). [Para 14) (786-F-H;
787-A-F)
Ashok Gangadhar Maratha v. Oriental Insurance Co.
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)
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
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
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
B
. 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
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
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
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
E
F
G
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
B
c
unambiguously lends support to the legislative intent behind
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
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
E
F
of the class of light 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 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
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]
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
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
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
E
F
G
H
772
A
B
c
D
E
F
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 7 S.C.R.
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.
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.
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
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;
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.
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]
H
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)
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
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.
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)
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
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
c
D
E
F
. 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
A
B
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 7 S.C.R.
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
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.
D
E
F
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
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
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
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
[2007] 9 SCR 78
relied on
Para 26
G
[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
E
[2009) 2 SCR 695
overruled
Para 39
(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,
2016,
Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.15881, 28778 and 2492-2493 of
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,
B
c
Ms. Prem Lata, Rajeev Kumar Bansal, Akshay K. Ghai, Maneesh
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.
· 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
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.
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.
E
F
G
H
778
A
B
c
D
E
F
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 7 S.C.R.
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
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
'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
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
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
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?
H
2. Whether 'transport vehicle' and 'omnibus' the "gross vehicle
weight" of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg. would be a
MUKUND DEWANGAN v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED [ARUN MISHRA, J.]
"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 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
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
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?
779
A
B
c
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 postamendment 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."
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
1. Subs. by Act 54 of 1994, sec. 3, for "a motor cab" (w.e.f. 1411-1994)."
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.
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
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
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)
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
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;
MUKUND DEWANGAN v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED [ARUN MISHRA, J.]
(e) medium goods vehicle;
(f) medium passenger motor vehicle;
(g) heavy goods vehicle;
(h) heavy passenger motor vehicle;
(i) roadroller;
(j) motor vehicle of a specified description.""
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
·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:
"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.
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
March 1990 to examine and review the 1988 Act.
781
A
B
c
D
E
F
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,-
B
( 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
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;
D
E
(Q The simplification ofprocedures and policy liberalisation in the
field ofRoad Transport;
(g) Enhancing penalties for traffic offenders.
4. Therefore, the proposed legislation has been prepared in the
light of the above background. The Bill inter alia provides for-
( a) modification and amplification of certain definitions of new
type of vehicles;
(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;
G
H
( 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
stocking/sale by the traders;
(h) increase in the amount of compensation of the victims of hit
and run cases;
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.
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
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
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
aforesaid four kinds of vehicles. The provision of section 10 after
amendment made by Act 54 of I 994 is extracted hereunder:
"10.