Full Judgment Text
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.841 OF 2018
M/s. BAJAJ ALLIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Appellant
VERSUS
RAMBHA DEVI & ORS. Respondents
WITH
SLP(C) No.18849/2019
SLP(C) Nos.14645-14646/2017
SLP(C) Nos.35472-35473/2017
SLP(C) No.6055/2018
Civil Appeal No.1477/2018
Civil Appeal No.842/2018
Civil Appeal No.483/2018
Civil Appeal No.1478/2018
Diary No.40406/2017
Civil Appeal No.1476/2018
Diary No.41949/2017
SLP(C) No.597/2018
SLP(C) No.524/2018
Diary No.2524/2018
SLP(C) No.9604/2018
SLP(C) No.9613/2018
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by Dr.
Mukesh Nasa
Date: 2022.03.10
19:51:41 IST
Reason:
SLP(C) No.17506/2018
Diary No.9970/2018
2
SLP(C) Nos.19242-19244/2018
Diary No.23636/2018
Diary No.23638/2018
Diary No.24137/2018
Diary No.24530/2018
Diary No.24534/2018
Diary No.24834/2018
Diary No.25256/2018
SLP(C) No.24671/2018
Diary No.32753/2018
Diary No.32756/2018
Diary No.37055/2018
Diary No.39059/2018
SLP(C) No.426/2019
SLP(C) Nos.505-506/2019
SLP(C) No.5958/2019
SLP(C) Nos.11503-11504/2019
SLP(C) No.13315/2019
SLP(C) Nos.14523-14524/2019
SLP(C) No.20449/2019
SLP(C) No.21547/2019
SLP(C) Nos.23017-23018/2019
Civil Appeal Nos.8001-8002/2019
SLP(C) No.766/2020
SLP(C) No.24545/2019
3
SLP(C) Nos.30420-30421/2019
SLP(C) No.696/2021
SLP(C) Nos.3735-3736/2021
Civil Appeal No.1506/2018
Diary No.37270/2017
Civil Appeal No.1479/2018
SLP(C) Nos.2684-2685/2018
SLP(C) No.5065/2018
SLP(C) No.10459/2018
SLP(C) No.9908/2018
SLP(C) No.6668/2018
Diary No.4869/2018
Diary No.6119/2018
Diary No.6264/2018
SLP(C) No.8816/2018
SLP(C) No.9607/2018
SLP(C) No.9610/2018
SLP(C) No.9612/2018
SLP(C) No.9608/2018
SLP(C) No.9606/2018
SLP(C) No.9609/2018
Diary No.9963/2018
SLP(C) No.28906/2018
SLP(C) No.5193/2018
Civil Appeal No.1475/2018
Diary No.990/2018
4
SLP(C) No.5188/2018
SLP(C) No.9611/2018
SLP(C) No.9605/2018
O R D E R
1. On a reference made by a Two-Judge Bench in Civil Appeal
No.841 of 2018 and other connected matters, these matters have been
listed before us.
2. The referral order dated 03.05.2018 notes that a Three-Judge
Bench of this Court in Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance
Company Limited, (2017) 14 SCC 663, considered inter alia question
whether a person holding a driving licence in respect of “light
motor vehicle”, could on the strength of that licence, be entitled
to drive a “transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class” having
unladen weight not exceeding 7500 kgs. The referral order quoted
the conclusions drawn in paragraphs 60 to 60.4 in Mukund Dewangan
(supra):
“60. Thus, we answer the questions which are referred to
us thus:
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 Sections
2(15) and 2(48). Such transport vehicles are not excluded
from the definition of the light motor vehicle by virtue
of Amendment Act 54 of 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
roadroller, “unladen weight” of which does not exceed 7500
kg and holder of a driving licence to drive class of
5
“light motor vehicle” as provided in Section 10(2)( d ) is
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. 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 of 1994 and
28-3-2001 in the form.
60.3. 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” 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.”
Thereafter certain provisions which were not brought to the notice
of the Court deciding Mukund Dewangan ( supra ) were noted. Those
provisions as quoted in the order of reference were as under:
“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.
6
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 Rules Motor Vehicles Rules,
1989 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”) makes a
medical certificate issued by a registered medical
practitioner mandatory for 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.”
3. 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 some of the other
provisions, namely, second proviso to Section 15 and Sections 180
and 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 apart from those quoted 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
7
driving licence specifically entitles him so to do.”
4. 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.
5. 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 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. The Registry is, therefore, directed to place these matters,
except SLP (Civil) Nos.30420-30421/2019 and SLP(C) Nos.3735-
3736/2021, before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India to
constitute a Bench of appropriate strength to consider all these
issues.
7. 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.
8
SLP (Civil) Nos.30420-30421/2019; and, SLP(C) Nos.3735-3736/2021
8. At the request of the learned counsel, these matters are
detagged.
List these matters on 09.03.2022.
………………………………………………….J.
(UDAY UMESH LALIT)
………………………………………………….J.
(S. RAVINDRA BHAT)
………………………………………………….J.
(PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA)
New Delhi;
March 08, 2022.