New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that a person holding a driving licence for a light motor vehicle (LMV) is also entitled to drive a transport vehicle having an unladen weight below 7,500 kilograms.
The verdict was delivered by a five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud. The legal question had given rise to various disputes over payment of claims by insurance companies in accident cases involving transport vehicles being driven by those possessing licences to drive LMVs.
The five-judge bench led by CJI and comprising justices Hrishikesh Roy, P S Narasimha, Pankaj Mithal, and Manoj Misra had reserved the verdict on August 21. During the hearing, the Attorney General R Venkataramani, representing the Centre, had contended before the court that the consultations to amend the Motor Vehicles (MVs) Act, 1988 are almost complete. He had submitted that the proposed amendments are yet to be tabled in the Parliament and this can be done only in the winter session of the Parliament.
Today, the apex court said if the gross vehicle weight is within 7500 kg, the quintessential common’s man driver with LMV license can also drive a transport vehicle.
Justice Roy, pronouncing the judgment on behalf of the bench, said we are able to reach such a conclusion as none of the parties in this case has produced any empirical data to show that LMV drivers driving transport vehicles is a significant cause for road accidents in India. Justice Roy said that road safety is a serious public issue globally and 1.7 lakh persons were killed in India due to road accidents.
The apex court said that the additional eligibility requirement to drive transport vehicles will apply to only those transport vehicles which weigh more than 7500 kg.
The bench said this judgment would help in making insurance claims by an LMV holder who is found driving a vehicle weighing under 7500 kg. The bench stressed that the licensing regime cannot remain static, and the court expects suitable amendments would be made in the law to address the lacunae as it existed. Against the backdrop of road accidents data in the country, Justice Roy said that to say that it was because of LMV drivers is unsubstantiated.
Roy said the court's present interpretation on how the present licensing regime should operate for drivers under the statutory scheme is unlikely to compromise the road safety concerns. “This will also address the livelihood issues of drivers operating transport vehicles who clock maximum hours behind the wheels in transport vehicles below 7500 kg, with their LMV driving license...” he said.
The apex court highlighted the reasons such as non-compliance with seat belt rules, use of mobiles, being inebriated etc.
Interpreting the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the apex court affirmed the judgment in Mukund Dewangan Vs Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2017).
Justice Roy said concerns about road safety are often shaped by individual biases without the opinion being founded on any empirical data and it is easy to overlook the full spectrum of factors that contribute to road safety.
He said a harmonious interpretation of various sections in Motor Vehicle Act would lead us to conclude that a person holding a LMV license is equally competent to drive a transport vehicle, provided of course the vehicle’s gross weight does not exceed 7,500 kgs.
Justice Roy, on the perception of the capability of drivers on the road, cited comedian George Carlin, who 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?’
The counsel for the insurance companies raised concerns regarding road safety, arguing that if the present law in Mukund Dewangan (2017) is not interfered with, unfit drivers will start plying transport vehicles putting at risk the lives of thousands of people.
The bench noted that it is true that in its PIL jurisdiction, this court has passed orders in a myriad of cases including elevating the right of road safety to a fundamental right. “However, this court should be conscious that this is neither a Public Interest Litigation jurisdiction nor is the court testing the constitutional validity of any of the provisions. Moreover, no empirical data has been produced before us 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”, said Justice Roy, who authored 126-page judgment on behalf of the bench.
He said road safety is indeed an important objective of the MV Act but our reasoning must not be founded on unverified assumptions without any empirical data. He said the dangers of reasoning without empirical data and beyond the statutory scheme of the Act must be avoided.
“While we are mindful of issues of road safety, the task of crafting policy lies within the domain of the legislature. As a constitutional court, it is not our role to dictate policy decisions or rewrite laws. We must be mindful of the institutional limitation to address such concerns”, said the bench.
He said the findings in Mukund Dewangan (2017) need not be disturbed owing to speculative concerns of road safety that intersect with broader policy issues.
He stressed that road safety is a serious public health issue globally and it is crucial to mention that in India, over 1.7 lakh persons were killed in road accidents in 2023. He added that the causes of such accidents are diverse, and assumptions that they stem from drivers operating light transport vehicles with an LMV license are unsubstantiated. “Factors contributing to road accidents include careless driving, speeding, poor road design, and failure to adhere to traffic laws. Other significant contributors are mobile phone usage, fatigue, and non-compliance with seat belt or helmet regulations”, he said.
He said an authoritative pronouncement by this court 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. “In an era where autonomous or driver-less vehicles are no longer tales of science fiction and app-based passenger platforms are a modern reality, the licensing regime cannot remain static. The amendments that have been carried out by the Indian legislature may not have dealt with all possible concerns”, said Justice Roy.
He said the additional eligibility criteria specified in the MV Act and MV Rules generally for driving ‘transport vehicles’ would apply only to those intending to operate vehicles with gross vehicle weight exceeding 7,500 kg.
He said it is the considered opinion of this court that if the gross vehicle weight is within 7,500 kg - the quintessential common man’s driver , with LMV license, can also drive a “transport vehicle”.
“Our present interpretation on how the licensing regime is to operate for drivers under the statutory scheme is unlikely to compromise the road safety concerns. This will also effectively address the livelihood issues for drivers operating Transport Vehicles (who clock maximum hours behind the wheels), in legally operating “Transport vehicles” (below 7,500 Kg), with their LMV driving license”, said Justice Roy.
Concluding the judgment, Justice Roy said perforce Sri (fictional name of a driver) must drive responsibly and should have no occasion to be called either a maniac or an idiot (as mentioned in the first paragraph), while he is behind the wheels.
