Matter relating to whether a person licensed to drive LMV ipso facto entitled to drive a transport vehicle in that category, referred by present three-Judge Bench to larger Bench of Supreme Court for reconsideration of correctness of ruling of three-Judge Bench in Mukund Dewangan, (2017) 14 SCC 663. Held, 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.” Para 4.
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 driving licence specifically entitles him so to do.”
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. Para 5 and 6.
Held, 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 revisited. 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. Para 7. Prayer for reconsideration of Mukund Dewangan case by a larger Bench, granted on ground that a number of important differences between licence for driving LMV and licence for driving transport vehicle of same weight, had not been considered therein.
[Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi, (2023) 4 SCC 723]