SC rules LMV driving license holders can drive transport vehicles under 7500 kg
THE JHARKHAND STORY DESK Advertisement New Delhi, Nov 6: The Supreme Court today (November 6) held that a person holding a…
THE JHARKHAND STORY DESK
New Delhi, Nov 6: The Supreme Court today (November 6) held that a person holding a driving license for a light motor vehicle (LMV) can, without any specific endorsement, can drive a transport vehicle having an unladen weight of less than 7500 kg, reports Live Law.
If the gross weight of the vehicle is within 7500 kg, the driver with an LMV license can drive such a transport vehicle. The Court noted that no empirical data has been brought before it to show that LMV license holders driving transport vehicles are a significant cause of road accidents.
The additional eligibility requirement to drive transport vehicles will apply to only those transport vehicles which weigh more than 7500 kgs.
Adopting a harmonious interpretation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Court endorsed the decision in Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2017) 14 SCC 663. The Court also approached the issue from the perspective of livelihood issues of transport vehicle drivers.
The 5 Judge Constitution bench was considering the issue of whether a person holding a driving license in respect of a “light motor vehicle” (LMV), could on the strength of that license, be entitled to drive a “transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class” having unladen weight not exceeding 7500 kg.
The Bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud comprising Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice PS Narasimha, Justice Pankaj Mithal, and Justice Manoj Misra decided the matter, as reported by Live Law.
Justice Roy wrote the judgment on behalf of the bench.
Also Read- Jharkhand Weather: Dry weather forecast on Chhath
Conclusions of the Judgment
1. A driver holding a license for Light Motor Vehicle for vehicles for vehicles under weight 7500 kg is permitted to operate a transport vehicle without needing additional authorisation under Section 10(2)(e) of the MV Act.
2. For licensing purposes, LMVs and transport vehicles are not entirely separate classes. An overlap exists between the two. The special eligibility requirement will however continue to apply to, inter-alia, e-carts, e-rickshaws, and vehicles carrying hazardous goods.
3. The second part of Section 3(1), which emphasises the necessity of a specific requirement to drive transport vehicle, does not supersede the definition of LMV provided in Section 2(21) of the MV Act.
4. 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 transport vehicles exceeding 7500 kgs, i.e medium goods vehicle, medium passenger vehicle, heavy goods vehicle and heavy passenger vehicles.
The present issue first arose in the judgement Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2017) 14 SCC 663. In this case, a 3-judge Bench comprising Justice Amitava Roy, Justice Arun Mishra, and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul held that a separate endorsement in the “Light Motor Vehicle” driving licence was not required to drive a transport vehicle having unladen weight below 7500 kgs. Thus, a person holding an LMV driving licence was entitled to drive a “transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class” having an unladen weight not exceeding 7500 kgs. In 2022, the dictum in Mukund Dewangan was doubted by a coordinate bench and the matter was referred to a 5-judge bench, as per Live Law.
Notably, during the hearings Court pointed at the possible impact the present case may have on the issue of livelihood. It asked the Union to consider probable policy changes in the legislation to strike a balance between the livelihood issue and road safety concerns.
The Attorney General for India R Venkataramani also informed the bench that the deliberations on the possible policy changes relating to relevant amendments in the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (MVA) were almost complete with State Governments on the present issue. However, since the deliberations did not yield a concrete result, the Court chose to decide the matter on merits and reserved the judgment on August 21. (Courtesy: Live Law)
