SC permits LMV driving licence holders to drive transport vehicles weighing up to 7,500 kg
New Delhi: In a landmark ruling on Wednesday, the Supreme Court clarified licensing rules for Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) drivers, asserting that holders of an LMV licence can legally operate transport vehicles weighing up to 7,500 kg. This judgement from a five-judge Constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, is expected to have wide-reaching implications for commercial drivers and the insurance sector, potentially preventing insurers from denying claims based on the type of licence a driver holds at the time of an accident.
The unanimous 126-page verdict, authored by Justice Hrishikesh Roy, reaffirmed the court’s 2017 decision in the Mukund Dewangan case, which had ruled that an LMV licence holder could operate transport vehicles within the specified weight limit. The bench, comprising Chief Justice Chandrachud and Justices P S Narasimha, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra, and Hrishikesh Roy, aimed to clarify longstanding ambiguities in licensing regulations under the Motor Vehicles (MV) Act.
“A driver holding a licence for LMV class, under section 10(2)(d) for vehicles with a gross weight under 7,500 kg, is permitted to operate a ‘Transport Vehicle’ without requiring additional authorization specifically for the ‘Transport Specifically for the ‘Transport Vehicle’ class under Section 10(2)(e) of the MV Act,” the court stated. The bench emphasised that there is an overlap between the LMV and transport vehicle categories, allowing LMV-licensed drivers to operate transport vehicles within the specified weight class.
However, the ruling also outlined specific exemptions. Special licensing requirements would continue to apply for vehicles like e-carts, e-rickshaws, and those carrying hazardous goods, which require additional scrutiny due to the nature of their operation.
The judgement addressed road safety concerns raised by insurance companies, which had previously argued that allowing LMV-licensed drivers to operate transport vehicles could lead to higher accident rates. However, the court found no empirical evidence supporting this claim. “Road safety is a serious public health issue globally, with over 1.7 lakh
persons killed in road accidents in India in 2023,” the verdict noted, but added that causes of accidents are varied and cannot be directly attributed to drivers operating transport vehicles with an LMV licence. “Contributing factors include careless driving, speeding, poor road design, and disregard for traffic laws, as well as mobile phone use, fatigue, and non-compliance with seat belt or helmet regulations.”
The bench argued that, while driving requires both skill and theoretical knowledge, there was no data to suggest that LMV licence holders driving transport vehicles posed a particular threat to road safety. “We conclude that none of the parties in this case presented empirical data indicating that LMV licence holders driving a ‘Transport Vehicle’ significantly contribute to road accidents in India.”
Moreover, the ruling clarified that additional licensing requirements apply only to vehicles categorised as “medium goods vehicles,” “medium passenger vehicles,” “heavy goods vehicles,” and “heavy passenger vehicles”—all with a gross weight exceeding 7,500 kg. This differentiation, the court noted, supports the livelihood of commercial drivers by removing a licensing barrier that previously placed their employment at risk.
The bench underscored that the decision aligns with the dual objectives of the MV Act—enhancing road safety and ensuring timely compensation for accident victims. By clarifying this licensing issue, the court aims to prevent insurance companies from citing a driver’s licence type to deny claims in cases involving vehicles under 7,500 kg. “This interpretation does not undermine road safety and ensures that insurance claims involving licensed LMV drivers operating transport vehicles within the legal weight limit can be processed without unnecessary legal obstruction,” the court stated.
The judgement also reflected on the legislative delays in amending the MV Act, noting that prolonged confusion and inconsistent judicial rulings could have been mitigated had the Act more clearly defined vehicle categories and licensing requirements.
