FAO No. 3880 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH FAO No. 3880 of 2009 Date of decision August 26, 2010 Bantu Kumar and another ....... Appellants Versus Ram Chander and others ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. R. A. Sheoran, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Vandana Malhotra, Advocate for respondent No.5. **** K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The appellant has been saddled with the liability to satisfy the award in the event of a right of recovery exercised by the insurer. This had been done in view of the fact that the driver was driving a goods carriage without a transport vehicle endorsement. 2. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that the vehicle was a Light Motor Vehicle whose unladen weight was 1625 Kilo grams and having regard to the fact that the driver had a Ligh Motor Vehicle license, it should have been taken that he was duly licensed. The contention on behalf of the insurer before the Tribunal was that the vehicle had been insured as a goods carriage and it was also used as such. The fact that it was a Light Motor Vehicle and that the driver had a driving license address only one side of the issue. If such a Light Motor Vehicle is also a goods carriage it becomes a transport vehicle under Section 2 (14) which includes any Motor Vehicle adapted for use of carriage of goods. It could be a LMV or HMV. The category is FAO No. 3880 of 2009 2 irrelevant but it is only the user or adaptation made for the purpose of transport of goods that is relevant. If it is a goods carriage the necessity of having to secure a special endorsement is unexceptional in terms of Section 3 of the Act. The tribunal has relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Prabhu Lal 2008 (1) LJR page 537 to the effect that if a vehicle was a goods carriage and it did not have a transport vehicle endorsement the insurer shall not be liable. Learned counsel wants to distinguish this decision by reference to a still later judgment of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Annappa Irappa Nesaria, 2008 (2) Law Hearald (SC) page 1053 that dealt with the case of LMV who had a license to drive a LMV and the issue was whether it was a Light Goods Vehicle. The decision was rendered in the context of an accident that took place on 9.12.1999, that was before the amendment that was brought to the rule 14 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules which substituted by the expression of Transport Vehicle for four other types of vehicle, Light Motor Vehicle, Medium Goods Vehicle, Heavy Goods Vehicle and Motor Vehicle on prescribed descriptions. In a pre amendment period there was no difference between the holder of a Light Motor Vehicle license and the Light Motor Goods Vehicle license. This distinction is brought out on 28.3.2001 by the amendment. This accident had taken place subsequently when a driver ought to have applied for a transport vehicle in form IV and secured a license in Form VI as prescribed by the Rules. The driver was not duly licensed and the Tribunal was justified in providing to the insurer the right of recovery. The appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 26, 2010 archana FAO No. 3880 of 2009 3