LMV Driving Licence Holder Can Drive A Transport Vehicle Having An Unladen Weight Of Less Than 7500 Kg: Supreme Court

Today (November 06, 2024), the Constitution bench of the Supreme Court (SC) held that a person holding an LMV (light motor vehicle) driving licence can drive a transport vehicle having an unladen weight of less than 7500 kg. The matter was heard by a five-judge bench constituting Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice Manoj Misra, Justice PS Narasimha, and Justice Pankaj Mithal. The judgment was delivered today, authored by Justice Hrishikesh Roy on behalf of the Constitution bench. While pronouncing the judgment, the SC bench noted that “...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.” The Constitution bench addressed the following issues after hearing submissions.

1. “Whether a driver holding an 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;
2. 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;
3. 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 ;
4. 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)? 
5. Whether the decision in Mukund Dewangan(2017) is per incuriam for not noticing certain provisions of the MV Act and MV Rules?” 

The SC bench opined, “It is true that Mukund Dewangan (2017) did not analyze the provisions that distinguish transport and non-transport vehicles,...the Court failed to notice Section 31(2) and 31(3) which specify ‘Transport’ and ‘Non-Transport’ vehicles. However, the judgment gave due consideration to the important statutory provisions…The overlooked provisions would not, in our considered opinion, alter the eventual pronouncement. Importantly, we do not notice any glaring error or omission that would alter the outcome of the case. Therefore, the ratio in Mukund Dewangan (2017) should not be disturbed by applying the principles of per incuriam.” The judgment authored by Justice Roy illustrated the following conclusion regarding the matter.

• “A driver holding a license for Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) class, under Section 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 under Section 10(2)(e) of the MV Act specifically for the ‘Transport Vehicle’ class. For licensing purposes, LMVs and Transport Vehicles are not entirely separate classes. An overlap exists between the two. The special eligibility requirements will however continue to apply for, inter alia, e-carts, e-rickshaws, and vehicles carrying hazardous goods.
• The second part of Section 3(1), which emphasizes the necessity of a specific requirement to drive a ‘Transport Vehicle,’ does not supersede the definition of LMV provided in Section 2(21) of the MV Act.
• 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 i.e. ‘medium goods vehicle’, ‘medium passenger vehicle’, ‘heavy goods vehicle’ and ‘heavy passenger vehicle’. 
• The decision in Mukund Dewangan (2017) is upheld but for reasons as explained…in this judgment. In the absence of any obtrusive omission, the decision is not per incuriam, even if certain provisions of the MV Act and MV Rules were not considered in the said judgment.”

Lastly, the SC bench directed the Registry to list the matters before the appropriate Bench after obtaining directions from Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India.