- Case
- M/S CHATHA SERVICE STATION v. LALMATI DEVI (Supreme Court of India, 08-04-2025)
- Law
- Code of Civil Procedure, Constitution of India, Motor Vehicles Act.
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: The judgment discusses Section 10, which enumerates the various classes of vehicles for which licenses are granted, clarifying that goods vehicles and vehicles designed to carry dangerous/hazardous goods fall under the 'transport vehicle' class. Clause (j) of Section 10(2) specifically mentions ‘motor vehicle of a specified description'. Section 11, concerning additions to driving licenses, is also discussed. Section 14 is examined, focusing on the proviso that, at the time of the accident, restricted the validity of a license to drive a transport vehicle carrying dangerous and hazardous goods to one year, requiring a one-day refresher course for renewal. Section 3 distinguishes an ‘effective licence' and Section 149 discusses 'duly licenced'. Section 41(4) empowers the Central Government to specify the type of motor vehicles, considering design, construction, and use, and to issue notifications in the Official Gazette.
Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989: The judgment extensively discusses Rule 9, which requires that any person driving a goods carriage carrying dangerous or hazardous goods must have a driving license, the ability to read and write in at least one Indian language specified in the VIIIth Schedule of the Constitution of India and English, and a certificate of having successfully passed a prescribed course. The syllabus detailed in Rule 9 includes parts 'A', 'B', and 'C', emphasizing driving skill, efficiency, product safety, and emergency procedures. The judgment also mentions Rule 14, stating that the driver of a goods vehicle carrying dangerous and hazardous goods is required to undergo training as prescribed under Rule 9 and obtain an endorsement of such training on their transport vehicle license.
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: The judgment refers to Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC, concerning the production of additional evidence at the appellate stage. The court agrees with the High Court's finding that the certificate produced at the appeal stage was not worthy of acceptance under Order 41 Rule 27, as it was not produced before the Tribunal, and no satisfactory explanation was given for its non-production at the earlier stage.
Constitution of India, 1949: The judgment mentions the VIIIth Schedule of the Constitution of India in the context of Rule 9 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, which requires drivers of vehicles carrying dangerous or hazardous goods to be able to read and write in at least one Indian language specified in the VIIIth Schedule.
