Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Rambha Devi 2024 INSC 840 - Motor Vehicle Act- LMV Licence
Motor Vehicle Act 1988-Section 10(2) -(I) 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, erickshaws, and vehicles carrying hazardous goods. (II) 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. (III) 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’.
Legal Maxims & Doctrines -Per Incuriam - The term per incuriam is a Latin term which means ‘by inadvertence’ or ‘lack of care’. English Courts have developed this principle in relaxation of the rule of stare decisis. (Para 98)- When dealing with the ignorance of a statutory provision, we may bear in mind the following principles. These may not however be exhaustive: (i) A decision is per incuriam only when the overlooked statutory provision or legal precedent is central to the legal issue in question and might have led to a different outcome if those overlooked provisions were considered. It must be an inconsistent provision and a glaring case of obtrusive omission. (ii) The doctrine of per incuriam applies strictly to the ratio decidendi and does not apply to obiter dicta. (iii)If a court doubts the correctness of a precedent, the appropriate step is to either follow the decision or refer it to a larger Bench for reconsideration. (iv)It has to be shown that some part of the decision was based on a reasoning which was demonstrably wrong, for applying the principle of per incuriam. In exceptional instances, where by obvious inadvertence or oversight, a judgment fails to notice a plain statutory provision or obligatory authority running counter to the reasoning and result reached, the principle of per incuriam may apply. (Para 111)
Interpretation of Statutes -It is a fundamental principle of statutory interpretation that ‘construction is to be made of all the parts together and not of one part only by itself’14. When attempting to discern the meaning of a certain provision in a statute, it is essential to consider that provision within the broader context of the entire legislative framework. The context encompasses several other critical dimensions. First, it involves reading the statute as a whole- Second, it is also crucial to take into account any previous statutes that are in pari materia. Third, a comprehensive understanding of the general scope and purpose of the statute is essential. Finally, a critical aspect of interpreting any statutory provision also involves identifying the mischief that the legislation intended to address 15 . Therefore, a nuanced and thorough interpretation would lend clarity and consistency in the application of legal principles (Para 17) -One provision must give way to the other only when reconciliation is not possible. However, when it is possible to harmonize the two, the Court need not determine which is the leading provision. (Para 73) - A statute should be interpreted in a manner that avoids leading to unworkable or impractical outcomes. If a statutory interpretation results in confusion, impracticability or creates burden that the legislature could not have intended, such an interpretation should be avoided. (Para 77)
Motor Accident Compensation Claims - compensation must not be denied for minor technical breaches of the licensing conditions. (Para 76)
Can a driver holding a license for Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) class for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight under 7,500 kg, be permitted to operate a ‘Transport Vehicle’ without needing additional authorization specifically for the ‘Transport Vehicle’ class?
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, erickshaws, and vehicles carrying hazardous goods. (II) 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. (III) 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’. (Para 131)
What is 'Per Incuriam'?
The term per incuriam is a Latin term which means ‘by inadvertence’ or ‘lack of care’. English Courts have developed this principle in relaxation of the rule of stare decisis. (Para 98)
When dealing with the ignorance of a statutory provision, we may bear in mind the following principles. These may not however be exhaustive: (i) A decision is per incuriam only when the overlooked statutory provision or legal precedent is central to the legal issue in question and might have led to a different outcome if those overlooked provisions were considered. It must be an inconsistent provision and a glaring case of obtrusive omission. (ii) The doctrine of per incuriam applies strictly to the ratio decidendi and does not apply to obiter dicta. (iii)If a court doubts the correctness of a precedent, the appropriate step is to either follow the decision or refer it to a larger Bench for reconsideration. (iv)It has to be shown that some part of the decision was based on a reasoning which was demonstrably wrong, for applying the principle of per incuriam. In exceptional instances, where by obvious inadvertence or oversight, a judgment fails to notice a plain statutory provision or obligatory authority running counter to the reasoning and result reached, the principle of per incuriam may apply. (Para 111)
What are principles on harmonious construction of statutes?
a. It is the duty of the courts to avoid a head-on clash between two sections of the Act and to construe the provisions which appear to be in conflict with each other in such a manner as to harmonise them;
b. The provisions of one section of a statute cannot be used to defeat the other provisions unless the court, in spite of its efforts, finds it impossible to effect reconciliation between them;
c. When there are two conflicting provisions in an Act, which cannot be reconciled with each other, they should be so interpreted that, if possible, effect should be given to both. This is the essence of the rule of harmonious construction;
d. The courts have also to keep in mind that an interpretation which reduces one of the provisions to a “dead letter” or “useless lumber” is not harmonious construction;
e. To harmonize is not to destroy any statutory provision or to render it otiose