SC refers to larger bench matter pertaining to LMV driving licence

A three-judge bench of justices Uday Umesh Lalit, S Ravindra Bhat and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha said, "We deem it appropriate to refer the matters to a larger bench of more than three Judges as the Chief Justice of India may deem appropriate to constitute."

The apex court directed the registry to place these matters before the Chief Justice of India to constitute a Bench of appropriate strength to consider all these issues.

Earlier, a two-judge bench had referred the matter to the three-judge bench to consider an earlier decision in the case of Mukund Dewangan wherein it was held that LMV driving licence holders don't need a separate endorsement for driving transport vehicle up to 7,500 kg vehicle.

A three-judge Bench of the top Court in 2017 had earlier held in Mukund Dewangan v Oriental Insurance Company Limited, a matter that a transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7,500 kg would be a light motor vehicle and also motor car or tractor or a road roller, 'unladen weight' of which does not exceed 7,500 kg and holder of a driving licence to drive class of "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 7,500 kg or a motor car or tractor or road-roller, the "unladen weight" of which does not exceed 7,500 kg.

Later in 2018, a two-judge Bench in civil appeal and other connected matters, which raised similar questions, listed the matter to the three-judge bench. The two-judge bench noted that in three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Mukund Dewangan v Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2017), 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 7,500 kgs.

During the hearing in the Supreme Court recently, senior advocates Jayant Bhushan, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Siddhartha Dave, as well as lawyers Amit Singh, Archana Pathak Dave, Kaustubh Shukla, Meenakshi Midha and Rajesh Kumar Gupta, appearing for insurance companies have invited court's attention to some of the other provisions, namely, second provision to Section 15 and Sections 180 and 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 apart from those quoted in the referral order. It was submitted that though Section 3 was quoted in the decision in Mukund Dewangan, 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 motorcycle 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 sp to do."

The counsel thus submitted that the provisions contemplate different regimes for those having a licence to drive Light Motor Vehicles as against those licensed to drive transport vehicles.

"Having bestowed our attention to the contentions raised by the 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," the top Court said recently.

"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 Chief Justice of India may deem appropriate to constitute," said the top court. (ANI)