The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has ruled that a driver with a Heavy Goods Vehicle license can also drive a Passenger Vehicle. The Court clarified that both fall under one single category – “Transport Vehicle” – after the 1994 amendment.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh gave a big decision that will impact many commercial drivers across the country. The Court said that if someone has a valid driving license to drive a “Heavy Goods Vehicle” (HGV), then they are also legally allowed to drive a “Passenger Service Vehicle” (PSV).
This is because both these types of vehicles now come under the same category called “Transport Vehicle” after a change made to the law in 1994.
Justice Mohd. Yousuf Wani explained in the judgment that under Section 10(2)(e) of the Motor Vehicles Act, it is no longer necessary to get a separate endorsement for each kind of commercial vehicle.
The judge said that since the 1994 amendment, the law has removed separate categories like HGV and PSV, and now only one category – “transport vehicle” – is used.
The Court clearly said,
“Any person who was holding a driving license authorizes him to drive a particular type of commercial vehicle would automatically be eligible to drive any other type of commercial vehicle, meaning thereby that a driver holding a driving license to drive a heavy goods vehicle would be competent to drive a passenger carrying vehicle.”
This important ruling came while the Court was hearing an appeal filed by National Insurance Company Ltd. The insurance company was challenging a decision made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) on February 6, 2014.
The main argument made by the insurance company was that the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident, Subash Chander, had a license only to drive a “Heavy Goods Vehicle” and did not have the extra PSV (Passenger Service Vehicle) endorsement, which they believed was needed to drive a passenger-carrying vehicle.
They also said that the 7.5% interest awarded by MACT was too high. The lawyer for the insurance company referred to an earlier High Court case – National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Bashir Ahmed Chopan & Ors – to support their claim that a PSV endorsement is necessary.
In addition, the company argued that the MACT was wrong to close their evidence without calling the witnesses, even though diet expenses for them had already been paid.
The High Court took a close look at the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, especially the definitions mentioned in Section 2. It said that both HGV and PSV fall under the wider term “Transport Vehicle” and are no longer considered separate for licensing purposes after the law was amended in 1994.
When looking at Section 10(2)(e), which tells how licenses should be issued, the Court said that the law changed on November 14, 1994. After that date, instead of having different classes like HGV and PSV, the law introduced just one category – “Transport Vehicle”.
So, a license for a transport vehicle means the driver can legally drive both goods and passenger vehicles, as long as they are commercial.
The Court also rejected the insurance company’s use of the Bashir Ahmed Chopan case, saying that the decision in that case was “per incuriam”, meaning it missed or ignored the correct legal position and the 1994 amendment.
Instead, the Court agreed with another ruling in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Mohd. Sadiq Kuchay and Ors., where it was clearly held that there is no need for a PSV endorsement under the Jammu & Kashmir Motor Vehicle Rules if the driver already has a valid “transport vehicle” license.
When it came to the question of the 7.5% interest awarded by the MACT, the Court said that this interest rate was not too high and seemed fair given the circumstances.
The Court also looked at the complaint that the MACT closed the evidence stage without calling witnesses. After checking the case file, the High Court found that there was no injustice or denial of a fair hearing. It said the MACT was within its rights to take such steps based on how the parties behaved during the proceedings.
So, the High Court dismissed the appeal and said that the case had no merit.
The Court also directed that the compensation money, which the insurance company had already deposited based on an earlier order from March 26, 2014, should now be given to the claimants as per the MACT’s award.
- The advocates who represented the insurance company in this case were Dinesh Singh Chauhan and Damini Singh Chauhan.
CASE TITLE:
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Naresh Kumar & Ors.
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on CJI BR Gavai
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Driving License
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
