JUDGMENT : Whether the person holding a driving licence to drive the ‘light motor vehicle’ is required to have transport vehicle endorsement to drive an autorickshaw as a public transport vehicle is the question before this Court. 2. The insurer is assailing the judgment and award dated 24.10.2009 passed in MVC No.1090/2007 wherein the MACT, Mangaluru fastened the liability on the insurer. 3. Essential facts necessary for adjudication of this appeal can be summed up as under : - The autorickshaw in question is covered by the policy issued by the insurer. - The driver had a licence to drive a ‘light motor vehicle’. - The autorickshaw was used as a public transport vehicle. - On 28-11-2006, the autorickshaw met with an accident, and the claimant, a passenger in the said vehicle, suffered injuries. - The driver did not have an endorsement to drive a transport vehicle. - The plea of the insurer that the licence to drive a ‘light motor vehicle’ without an endorsement to drive the ‘transport vehicle’ is not a valid licence to drive an autorickshaw is not accepted by the Tribunal. - Tribunal held that a licence to drive a ‘light motor vehicle’ is a valid licence to drive the autorickshaw even if it is used as a public transport vehicle. - The insurer is in appeal challenging the liability. 4. Heard Shri Venkatesh Bhagat, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/insurer. The respondents/claimant and the owner are served and unrepresented. 5. Shri Venkatesh Bhagat, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/insurer would urge the following contentions:- - The vehicle involved in the accident is an auto-rickshaw which fits into the definition of “motorcab” as defined under Section 2(25) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘the Act’ for short). The vehicle involved in the accident cannot be construed as a “light motor vehicle” as defined under Section 2(21) of the Act, 1988. - In terms of the requirement of Section 10(2) of the Act, 1988, the licence to drive a vehicle that is not falling under the categories specified in Section 10(2)(a) to (i) has to fall under Section 10(2) (j) of the Act. Since the autorickshaw does not fall under the categories specified in Section 10 (2) (a) to (i), the same would necessarily fall under Section 10(2) (j) of the Act. Since the autorickshaw does not fall under the categories specified in Section 10 (2) (a) to (i), the same would necessarily fall under Section 10(2) (j) of the Act. In that event, the licence should contain a specific mention that the driver is licenced to drive an autorickshaw. Since no such endorsement is found in the light motor vehicle licence issued in favour of the driver of the autorickshaw, it is to be held that the driver had no licence to drive the autorickshaw. - Section 3 of the Act, 1988 mandates a specific endorsement to drive the ‘transport vehicle’. Admittedly, the driver of the autorickshaw involved in the accident did not possess a specific endorsement to drive the transport vehicle or to drive an autorickshaw. Thus there is no valid driving licence to drive an autorickshaw and there is a breach on the part of the insured, as specified in Section 149(2) of the Act, 1988. - The Tribunal erred in holding that an autorickshaw is a light motor vehicle and the licence to drive a ‘light motor vehicle’ is a valid licence to drive the autorickshaw. - Form KVM 2, the format prescribed under the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules 1989 requires the motor vehicle description to be specified in the licence and autorickshaw is not specified in the driving licence produced before the tribunal. 6. The learned counsel would also submit that the ratio in the case of Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company- (2017) 14 SCC 663 is not applicable here as in the said judgment, the Apex Court has only considered whether the licence to drive a ‘light motor vehicle’ is good enough to drive a transport vehicle falling under the category of ‘Light Motor Vehicle’. According to Mr. Bhagat, since an autorickshaw is a motorcab, it cannot be classified as a light motor vehicle and the ratio laid down in the case cannot be applied to the present case where the vehicle in question is an autorickshaw. 7. Alternatively he would submit that the ratio in the case of Mukund Dewangan referred above is doubted in Bajaj Alliance General Insurance v/s Rambha Devi and others and the matter is now referred to the larger bench and the case on hand is to be considered independent of the principles laid down in the case of Mukund Dewangan. 7. Alternatively he would submit that the ratio in the case of Mukund Dewangan referred above is doubted in Bajaj Alliance General Insurance v/s Rambha Devi and others and the matter is now referred to the larger bench and the case on hand is to be considered independent of the principles laid down in the case of Mukund Dewangan. Elaborating on the aforementioned grounds, he would urge that the insurer is not liable to indemnify. 8. This Court has considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the records. 9. To answer the question raised in this case, it is necessary to identify the classification of ‘autorickshaw’ under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Admittedly ‘autorickshaw’ is not defined under the Act. Autorickshaw can be used both as a transport vehicle as well as a goods vehicle. It is also used as a private vehicle, very rarely though. The vehicle involved in this case was built to be used as a passenger vehicle. The ‘light motor vehicle’ is defined in Section 2(21) of the Act, 1988 reads as under:- "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 [7,500] kilograms; If the motor vehicle is a transport vehicle or an omnibus and if its gross weight is less than 7500 kilograms, then it is a ‘light motor vehicle’, Or, In the case of a motor car or tractor or road-roller, if the unladen weight of the vehicle is less than 7,500 kilograms, then it is a "light motor vehicle". 10. From the definition of "light motor vehicle", it is also apparent that the criterion for the classification of a vehicle as a light motor vehicle is either gross weight or unladen weight depending upon the type of the vehicle. The vehicle can be either a private vehicle or a transport vehicle or a goods vehicle. Merely because a light motor vehicle is used as a goods vehicle or a transport vehicle, it does not lose the characteristics of a ‘light motor vehicle’ as defined under the Act as long as the gross weight or the unladen weight of the vehicle as referred in Section 2(21) does not exceed 7500 kilograms. 11. Merely because a light motor vehicle is used as a goods vehicle or a transport vehicle, it does not lose the characteristics of a ‘light motor vehicle’ as defined under the Act as long as the gross weight or the unladen weight of the vehicle as referred in Section 2(21) does not exceed 7500 kilograms. 11. The autorickshaw involved in this case has less than 7500 kilograms of gross weight. It is also having less than 7500 kilograms of unladen weight, though the same is not relevant here. Since the vehicle is used as a transport vehicle, what matters is the gross weight which is admittedly less than 7500 kilograms. Thus there is no difficulty in holding that the autorickshaw involved in this case falls under the light motor vehicle category. 12. The next question that arises for consideration is, does it fall under the definition of “motorcab’’ as contended by the insurer. The "motorcab" defined in Section 2(25) of the Act, 1988 reads as under:- "motorcab" means by motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry not more than six passengers excluding the driver for hire or reward". 13. From the definition of “motorcab” found in Section 2(25) of the Act, 1988, it is apparent that for the vehicle to be classified as a "motorcab" the criterion is the sitting capacity of the passengers. If the sitting capacity of the passengers in a vehicle is up to six, excluding the driver, then the vehicle fits into the definition of the "motorcab". The definition does not make any distinction between the two-wheeler, three-wheeler, or four-wheeler. The only requirement is, that it should be a vehicle adapted to carry passengers and the sitting capacity should not exceed six excluding the driver. Thus the autorickshaw fits into the definition of “motorcab” as defined in Section 2(25) of the Act, 1988. 14. As already noticed above, an autorickshaw fits into the definition of a light motor vehicle as defined in Section 2(21) of the Act. Thus autorickshaw used as a public transport vehicle can be both a ‘light motor vehicle’ as well ‘motorcab’ under the Act. 15. Section 10 of the Act of 1988, deals with the form and other contents of the driving licence. Under Section 10 (2) of the Act, various types of vehicles are specified. Thus autorickshaw used as a public transport vehicle can be both a ‘light motor vehicle’ as well ‘motorcab’ under the Act. 15. Section 10 of the Act of 1988, deals with the form and other contents of the driving licence. Under Section 10 (2) of the Act, various types of vehicles are specified. Thus the next question that falls for consideration is under which category of vehicles specified in Section 10(2) of the Act, does the autorickshaw fit in? Section 10(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, reads as under: “10. Form and contents of licences to drive.— (1) xxx xxxxxx (2) A learner’s licence or, as the case may be, a driving licence shall also be expressed as entitling the holder to drive a motor vehicle of one or more of the following classes, namely:— (a) motor cycle without gear; (b) motor cycle with gear; (c) invalid carriage; (d) light motor vehicle; (e) transport vehicle; (i) road-roller; (j) Motor vehicle of a specified description. 16. From the aforementioned reading of Section 10(2) of the Act, it is apparent that certain classes of vehicles namely, the ‘motorcycle with gear’, ‘motorcycle without gear’, and ‘invalid carriage’ are specifically mentioned in Section 10(2)(a) to (c). The three classes of vehicles mentioned in Section 10(2)(a) to (c) form a separate class. All these vehicles fall outside the purview of ‘light motor vehicle’ even if the gross or unladen weight is below 7500 kilograms as they belong to a separate class in terms of Section 10 of the Act. 17. Autorickshaw is not specifically mentioned in S.10. However it is possible to mention ‘autorickshaw’ in the licence under Section 10(2)(j). At the same time by reason of the definition of “light motor vehicle” which includes a transport vehicle whose gross weight is less than 7500 kilograms and ‘motorcab’ which is adapted to carry not more than six passengers excluding the driver, the autorickshaw though is a motorcab also fits into the category of ‘light motor vehicle’. 18. Once the autorickshaw fits into the definition of a “light motor vehicle”, then the next question is whether the law laid down in the case of Mukund Dewangan, can be applied to the case when the ratio in the said case is doubted and referred to a larger bench. 19. 18. Once the autorickshaw fits into the definition of a “light motor vehicle”, then the next question is whether the law laid down in the case of Mukund Dewangan, can be applied to the case when the ratio in the said case is doubted and referred to a larger bench. 19. It is trite law that merely because a ratio laid down in a particular case is doubted and consequently question is referred to a larger bench, the precedential value of the said judgment is not lost. It continues to be binding on courts as long as the ratio is not overruled. Moreover, in the case of Bajaj Alliance General Insurance v/s Rambha Devi and others, the insurance companies have made a statement that they will pay the compensation as per the directions issued in terms of principles laid down in the case of Mukund Dewangan. Thus, the ratio laid down in the said case applies provided the autorickshaw is a ‘light motor vehicle’ under the Act. 20. Section 3 of the Act, 1988 reads as under:- “3. Necessity for driving licence.-(1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorizing him to drive the vehicle, and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle [other than [a motorcab or motor cycle] hired for his use or rented under any scheme made under sub-section (2) of section 75] unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do. (2) The conditions subject to which sub-section (1) shall not apply to a person receiving instructions in driving a motor vehicle shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government.” (Emphasis supplied) The expression other than a motorcab or motorcycle hired for his use or rented under any scheme made under sub-section (2) of section 75 found in Section 3 of the Act, does not contemplate special endorsement to drive the autorickshaw when the vehicle is used for own use of the owner. That means when a person uses motorcab for his own use, he does not require an endorsement to drive a transport vehicle. All that he needs is a licence to drive the particular class of vehicle. 21. That means when a person uses motorcab for his own use, he does not require an endorsement to drive a transport vehicle. All that he needs is a licence to drive the particular class of vehicle. 21. In Mukund Dewangan supra, the Hon'ble Apex Court has dealt with the implication of amendment to Section 10(2)(d) of the Act and has held that a separate endorsement to drive the transport vehicle is not required to drive a transport vehicle which falls in the category of "light motor vehicle" if a person is holding a licence to drive the "light motor vehicle". The Apex Court has considered the definition of ‘light motor vehicle’ appearing in Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act and also considered the question, "Whether, transport vehicles are excluded from it"? 22. The Court has also considered the effect of amendment vide Act No.54 of 1994 w.e.f. 14-11-1994 brought to Section 10 (2) (d) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 23. In paragraph No.55 of the judgment in Mukund Dewangan supra, it is held that, "If a vehicle falls into any of the categories, a licence holder holding licence to drive the class of vehicle can drive all vehicles of that particular class. No separate endorsement is to be obtained nor provided if the vehicle falls in any of that particular classes under Sub.Sec.10(2)". Dealing with Section 10(2) (a) to (j) of the Act of 19988, the Apex Court has held as under. “55. Sections 10(2)(a) to (j) lay down the classes of vehicles to be driven, not a specific kind of motor vehicle in that class. If a vehicle falls into any of the categories, a licence holder holding licence to drive the class of vehicle can drive all vehicles of that particular class. No separate endorsement is to be obtained nor provided if the vehicle falls in any of the particular classes of Section 10(2). ………… ……….In our considered opinion, even if such a vehicle is treated as a transport vehicle of the light motor vehicle class, the legal position would not change and the driver would still have a valid driving licence to drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class, whether it is a transport vehicle or a private car/tractor attached with a trolley or used for carrying goods in the form of the transport vehicle. 60.1. 60.1. “Light motor vehicle” as defined in Section 2(21) of the Act would include a transport vehicle as per the weight prescribed in Section 2(21) read with Sections 2(15) and 2(48). Such transport vehicles are not excluded from the definition of the light motor vehicle by Amendment Act 54 of 1994. 60.2. A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg would be a light motor vehicle and also motor car or tractor or a roadroller, “unladen weight” of which does not exceed 7500 kg and holder of a driving licence to drive the class of “light motor vehicle” as provided in Section 10(2)(d) is competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg or a motor car or tractor or roadroller, the “unladen weight” of which does not exceed 7500 kg. That is to say, no separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class as enumerated above. A licence issued under Section 10(2)(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54 of 1994 and 28-3-2001 in the form.” Paragraphs No.58 and 59 of the said judgment would answer the contention of the insurer raised in this appeal. The said paragraphs would read as under : “58. “Transport vehicle” has been defined in Section 2(47) of the Act, to mean a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle. “Public service vehicle” has been defined in Section 2(35) to mean any motor vehicle used or adapted to be used for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward and includes a maxi cab, a motorcab, contract carriage and stage carriage. “Goods carriage” which is also a transport vehicle is defined in Section 2(14) to mean a motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use solely for the carriage of goods, or any motor vehicle not so constructed or adapted when used for the carriage of goods. “Goods carriage” which is also a transport vehicle is defined in Section 2(14) to mean a motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use solely for the carriage of goods, or any motor vehicle not so constructed or adapted when used for the carriage of goods. It was rightly submitted that a person holding a licence to drive a light motor vehicle registered for private use, who is driving a similar vehicle which is registered or insured, for the purpose of carrying passengers for hire or reward, would not require an endorsement as to drive a transport vehicle, as the same is not contemplated by the provisions of the Act. It was also rightly contended that there are several vehicles which can be used for private use as well as for carrying passengers for hire or reward. When a driver is authorised to drive a vehicle, he can drive it irrespective of the fact whether it is used for a private purpose or for purpose of hire or reward or for carrying the goods in the said vehicle. It is what is intended by the provision of the Act, and Amendment Act 54 of 1994. 59. Section 10 of the Act requires a driver to hold a licence with respect to the class of vehicles and not with respect to the type of vehicles. In one class of vehicles, there may be different kinds of vehicles. If they fall in the same class of vehicles, no separate endorsement is required to drive such vehicles. As light motor vehicle includes a transport vehicle also, and a holder of a light motor vehicle licence can drive all the vehicles of the class including transport vehicles. It was pre-amended position as well as the post-amended position of Form 4 as amended on 28-3-2001.Any other interpretation would be repugnant to the definition of “light motor vehicle” in Section 2(21) and the provisions of Section 10(2)(d), Rule 8 of the 1989 Rules, other provisions and also the forms which are in tune with the provisions. Even otherwise the forms never intended to exclude transport vehicles from the category of “light motor vehicles” and for light motor vehicle, the validity period of such licence hold good and apply for the transport vehicle of such class also.” (Emphasis supplied) 24. Even otherwise the forms never intended to exclude transport vehicles from the category of “light motor vehicles” and for light motor vehicle, the validity period of such licence hold good and apply for the transport vehicle of such class also.” (Emphasis supplied) 24. It is to be noticed that the vehicle in question i.e., an autorickshaw does not fall in any of the categories specified in Section 10(2)(a) to (c), (i) and the category of transport vehicles which fall under the category of a medium goods vehicle, medium passenger vehicle, heavy goods vehicle and heavy passenger vehicle. At the same time, the ‘light motor vehicle’ specified in Section 10(2)(d) should not fall under the motor vehicle of a specified description under Section 10(2)(j). However, it does not mean that all transport vehicles to be specified in the licence issued under Section 10(2)(j) require an endorsement to drive a 'transport vehicle'. If the vehicle specified under Section 10(2)(j) fits into the category of 'light motor vehicle', and not falling under any of the categories specified in Section 10(2)(a) to (c), (i), then endorsement to drive a 'transport vehicle' is not required. 25. Thus, for a vehicle that is not falling under any of the categories specified in Section 10(2)(a) to (c) and not falling under the category specified in Section 10(2)(e), (medium goods vehicle, medium passenger vehicle, heavy goods vehicle and heavy passenger vehicle as explained in MUKUND DEWANGAN supra) and the vehicle not being a 'road roller' specified in Section 10(2)(i) then, whether the such vehicle requires special endorsement to drive as a transport vehicle or not, hinges on the question whether such vehicle also falls under the category of 'light motor vehicle' or not. 26. If the vehicle falls under the ‘light motor vehicle’ category, a special endorsement to drive the transport vehicle is not required. In that event, the licence to drive a ‘light motor vehicle’ is a valid licence to drive a transport vehicle falling under the category of ‘light motor vehicle’. If, it does not fall under the category of 'light motor vehicle', then, a special endorsement is required to drive the such vehicle as a 'transport vehicle'. 27. In that event, the licence to drive a ‘light motor vehicle’ is a valid licence to drive a transport vehicle falling under the category of ‘light motor vehicle’. If, it does not fall under the category of 'light motor vehicle', then, a special endorsement is required to drive the such vehicle as a 'transport vehicle'. 27. Applying the above-said test to the present set of facts of the case, there is no difficulty in holding that the autorickshaw though may be classified as a vehicle to be mentioned under Section 10(2)(j) while issuing a driving licence, if such autorickshaw also fits into the category of 'light motor vehicle', the licence to drive 'light motor vehicle' is also a valid licence to drive autorickshaw, as a transport vehicle. 28. It is also required to be noticed that the Government of India, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, issued a notification dated 16th April 2018 bearing No.RT-11021/44/2017 VMI. The said notification is issued clarifying the position relating to the special endorsement in respect of the light motor vehicles in the light of law declared by the Apex Court in Mukund Dewangan supra case referred above. Paragraph No.3 of the Notification reads as under: "3. In view of the legal position as settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above judgment, the requirement under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to obtain the transport licence would arise in the case of medium/heavy goods and passenger vehicles only. No other vehicle will require any separate endorsement, even if they are used for commercial purposes. The exemption from the requirement to obtain the endorsement for commercial vehicles would apply to the following vehicles: (i) Motor cycle without gear (ii) Motor cycle with gear (iii) Light motor vehicle (goods/passenger) (iv) e-rickshaw/e-cart." 29. From the said notification also, it is apparent that the endorsement to drive the transport vehicle is required only in respect of medium and heavy passenger vehicles, and medium and heavy goods vehicles. The notification further says no other vehicle will require any separate endorsement even if they are used for commercial purposes. The exemption from the requirement to obtain endorsement for commercial vehicles would apply to the following vehicles; (i) Motor cycle without gear (ii) Motor cycle with gear (iii) Light motor vehicle (goods/passenger) (iv) e-rickshaw/e-cart." 30. The notification further says no other vehicle will require any separate endorsement even if they are used for commercial purposes. The exemption from the requirement to obtain endorsement for commercial vehicles would apply to the following vehicles; (i) Motor cycle without gear (ii) Motor cycle with gear (iii) Light motor vehicle (goods/passenger) (iv) e-rickshaw/e-cart." 30. This Court has taken the view that the autorickshaw involved in this case is a Light Motor Vehicle. Thus, the autorickshaw even if it is used for commercial purpose as a transport vehicle does not require transport endorsement, provided, the gross weight of the vehicle is less than 7500 kgs. The licence to drive the light motor vehicle is a valid licence to drive an autorickshaw as a transport vehicle, provided it is weighing less than 7500 kilograms in gross weight. 31. As already noticed, the autorickshaw falls under the category of a ‘light motor vehicle’ as an autorickshaw is not specifically mentioned in Section 10(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act and it is not specifically defined under any other provisions of the Act. For the purpose of Section 3 of the Act of 1988, it is to be treated as a ‘light motor vehicle’. When that is the position, in terms of the ratio laid down in the case of Mukund Dewangan, it is to be held that no special endorsement is required to drive the autorickshaw as a transport vehicle. 32. As a caution, it is to be added that in terms of this judgment, this Court is not holding that the licence to drive an autorickshaw is a valid licence to drive a 'light motor vehicle'. This Court has considered the question whether the licence to drive a 'light motor vehicle’ is a valid licence to drive an autorickshaw as a 'transport vehicle' without any transport vehicle endorsement issued under Section 3 of the Act. 33. For the aforementioned reasons, the tribunal is justified in fastening the liability on the insurer. Hence the following : ORDER (i) The appeal is dismissed. (ii) Impugned judgment and award dated 24.10.2009 passed in MVC No.1090/2007, by the III Addl. District Judge and MACT, D.K. Mangaluru, is confirmed.