FAO No.1562 of 2006 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 5162 of 2006 Date of decision : 8.12.2006 United India Insurance Co.Ltd. ....Appellant Versus Smt. Saroj Aggarwal & others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE UMA NATH SINGH HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr. Vivek Singal, Advocate for the appellant. ... MAHESH GROVER,J.(O) In this appeal by the insurance company against the award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad dated 2.9.2004 passed in MVA Petition No.60 of 27.8.2004, challenge has been made on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a licence for a light motor vehicle while the vehicle involved was a heavy goods vehicle. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant relied on National Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Smt. Kusum Rai & Ors. JT 2006(4) SC 9. That apart, the multiplier adopted while assessing the compensation was also assailed. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the award which reveals that the driver of the offending FAO No.1562 of 2006 -2- vehicle was having a valid driving licence for driving a light motor vehicle. No evidence has been led by the appellant to show that the holding of a licence for a different type of vehicle other than the one involved in the accident was the main or contributory cause of accident. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and others (2004) 3 Supreme Court Cases 297 has held that it has to be established by adducing evidence on record that the person possessing licence for one type of vehicle but found driving another type of vehicle was the main or contributory cause of accident. In the absence of any such evidence in the instant case, we are unable to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant regarding the first contention. Besides, the amended provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 2(21) defines “light motor vehicle” 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.” The evidence on record shows that the vehicle involved was of the weight of 6240 kilograms, which clearly fell within the definition of the”light motor vehicle”. The licence of the driver of the offending vehicle was, therefore, perfectly in order. Regarding multiplier, the Tribunal after considering the age of the deceased as 39 years applied a multiplier of 15 which is completely in accordance with the schedule of the Act. FAO No.1562 of 2006 -3- For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any infirmity in the award of the Tribunal and the appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed in limine. (UMA NATH SINGH) (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE JUDGE December 8, 2006 dss