IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.4281 of 2001 (O&M) Date of decision:07.10.2010 National Insurance Company ....Appellant versus Satbir and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr.Asim Aggarwal, Advocate, for Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.B.S.Rana, Advocate, for the respondents. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The Insurance Company is in appeal challenging the liability on the ground that the driver did not have a valid driving licence. It is an admitted case that the driver had a driving licence for a light motor vehicle and for a motorcycle. The vehicle involved in the accident was a goods carriage and hence a transport vehicle within the definition of Section 2(44) of the Motor Vehicles Act was necessary. The contention before the Tribunal which was accepted and which is urged by the counsel for the owner/driver is that the vehicle which was involved in the accident was a Tata 407 which is a light motor vehicle and, therefore, the licence was valid. This misses a fundamental point that it is not merely FAO No.4281 of 2001 (O&M) - 2 - an issue that it was a light motor vehicle that would conclude the finding in favour of the owner. If a light motor vehicle happens to be also a transport vehicle such as when it is used for carrying carriage or it is a public or private service vehicle then Section 3 mandates that it shall carry a transport vehicle endorsement. Section 10 which stipulates the form and content and licence also specifies a transport vehicle as a distinct category of light motor vehicle. Even the application for securing a licence which is set forth in form 4 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules and the grant of licence in form 6 make distinct categories for transport vehicle. In National Insurance Company Limited Versus Challa Bharathamma and others-2005(1) PLR 102 where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with an issue of a three- wheeler which was a light motor vehicle and the driver had also light motor vehicle licence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court found that if it required a permit as a commercial vehicle, then it also required a transport vehicle endorsement and found that the driver was not duly licensed and the insurer could not be made liable. 2. The learned counsel relies on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashok Gangadhar Maratha Versus Oriental Insurance Company Limited-(1999) 6 SCC 620 to say that a transport vehicle endorsement is not necessary. The applicability of the decision was limited to the peculiar facts of the case in National Insurance Company Versus Prabhu Lal-(2008) 1 SCC 696, distinguished on facts in Oriental Insurance Company Versus Angad Kol-(2009) 11 SCC 356, and held differently in New India Assurance Company Versus Suresh FAO No.4281 of 2001 (O&M) - 3 - Chandra Aggarwal-(2009) 15 SCC 761. I hasten to follow the decision in Challa Bharathamma and the several decisions referred to above to hold that the driver was not duly licensed. 3. The award is modified to provide for a right of recovery for the insurer against the insured and the appeal is allowed to the above extent. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 07.10.2010 sanjeev