Supreme Court rules LMV licence holders can drive transport vehicles up to 7,500 kg; check all details

The Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that individuals holding a light motor vehicle (LMV) driving licence are eligible to drive transport vehicles with a weight of up to 7,500 kg.

This development, a significant ruling benefiting commercial drivers, came from a five-judge Constitution bench, led by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud. It offers clarity on licensing regulations and is expected to prevent insurance companies from rejecting claims based on the licence type of drivers involved in accidents.

The bench said that a driver holding a licence for a light motor vehicle, one with gross vehicle weight (GMV) under 7,500 kg, is permitted to operate a transport vehicle without needing additional authorisation.

According to The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, “a light motor vehicle means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road-roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed 7500 kilograms”

"LMVs and transport vehicles are not entirely separate classes, and overlap exists between the two,” the bench held, adding the statute should remain practical and workable, according to the PTI report.

The report added that while the verdict was unanimous for the bench, Justice Hrishikesh Roy said that the special eligibility requirement will continue to apply to vehicles carrying hazardous goods.

The bench also included Justices P S Narasimha, Pankaj Mithal and Manoj Misra, apart from the CJI and Justice Roy.

“Road safety is a serious public issue globally. It is crucial to mention that in India, over 1.7 lakh persons were killed in road accidents, and the assumption that they stem from drivers operating light transport vehicles driven by LMV licence holders are unsubstantiated,” the bench said.

Factors contributing to road accidents

The bench noted that the factors contributing to road accidents include rash driving, speeding, road design and the failure to adhere to traffic laws. Other factors include the use of mobile phones while driving and non-compliance with regulations like seat belts and wearing helmets, it added.

“We are able to reach such a conclusion as none of the parties, in this case, has produced any empirical data to demonstrate that LMV driving licence holders driving a transport vehicle is a significant cause for road accidents in India,” it said.

“An authoritative pronouncement by this court would prevent an insurance company from taking a technical plea to defeat a legitimate claim for compensation involving an insured vehicle going below 7,500 kg, driven by a person holding a driving licence for LMVs in an era where autonomous or driverless vehicles are no longer tales of science fiction and app-based passenger platforms are a modern reality, the licensing regime cannot remain static,” it said, the PTI report noted.

In simple words, this means that there is no empirical evidence proving that LMV licence holders are responsible for road accidents in the country, so insurance companies must not reject claims based on this.

The bench added that the amendments carried out under Indian law may not have dealt with all the possible concerns.

“As we are informed by the attorney general that the legislative exercise is underway, we hope that a comprehensive amendment to address the statutory lacunas will be made with necessary corrective measures,” it said.

"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," the court said.

Further ruling by the bench

The bench commented that this step would also address the livelihood issues for drivers operating transport vehicles who clock maximum hours behind the wheels in their vehicles below 7,500 kg with their LMV driving licence.

It upheld the 2017 judgement of the apex court in the Mukund Dewangan case which had ruled that LMV licence holders can drive transport vehicles weighing up to 7,500 kg.

The bench had reserved its decision on August 21 after the Attorney General, R. Venkataramani, representing the government, said that discussions to amend the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, were nearly finished.

Reserving a verdict means that the court has heard all the arguments in a case but has not delivered its final decision yet. Instead, the judges take some time to review the case, consider the legal points and then announce their verdict at a later date.

The legal question

The main question was whether a person holding a driving licence for a light motor vehicle (LMV) is also entitled to drive a transport vehicle with an unladen weight not exceeding 7,500 kg. This was answered by the bench, providing much-needed clarity on the case.

The issue has 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 insurance firms have claimed that the courts have been taking a pro-insured stand while deciding on the insurance claim disputes regarding this. They have alleged that the motor accident claim tribunals (MACTs) and the courts have been passing orders asking them to pay insurance claims, disregarding their objections with regard to the LMV driving licence.

Background of the case

The matter stemmed from the Supreme Court's 2017 ruling in the case of Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, where a three-judge bench had held that transport vehicles weighing up to 7,500 kg should be considered within the definition of a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV). The issue was referred to a larger bench on March 8, 2022, by a three-judge bench led by Justice U.U. Lalit, who is now retired.

Following the Mukund Dewangan case judgement, the government accepted the decision, and the relevant rules were amended accordingly. However, on July 18 last year, the Constitution bench began hearing 76 petitions related to this legal issue. The lead petition for the case was filed by the Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited. In referring the case to the larger bench, the court had noted that certain provisions of the law had been overlooked in the Mukund Dewangan ruling, suggesting that the issue needed further reconsideration. The Motor Vehicles Act itself provides distinct licensing rules for different vehicle categories, which was central to the dispute.