FAO No. 189 of 1998 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH FAO No. 189 of 1998 Date of decision March 7, 2011 National Insurance Co. Ltd. ....... Appellant Versus Raghbir Singh and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Inderjeet Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Pardeep Bedi, Advocate for the appellant. Mr, Vikram Singh Dhopla, 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 appeal is by the Insurance Company on the the issue of liability in a case where the driver was said to have obtained a renewal endorsement to his driving license that showed that he was authorized to drive a heavy goods vehicle. The contention of the insurer is that he was driving a heavy passenger vehicle at that time and therefore he was not duly licensed. The renewal was for the period ending with 31.7.1997 and in the intervening period, an amendment through Act 54 of 1994 had come about that substituted the expression 'heavy goods vehicle' or heavy passenger vehicle as 'transport vehicle'. I cannot accept that there are any different driving skills required for a heavy goods vehicle and heavy passenger vehicle and I will not take this to be a breach of such type as to found a justification for exoneration of a liability of the insurer. FAO No. 189 of 1998 2 2. There have been some divergence of views of this issue relating to an effect of a person having a heavy goods vehicle license to drive a heavy passenger vehicle. Before the amendment Act 54 of 1994, the decision in High Court of Karnatka and Madras have held in United India Insurance Company Vs. Dhanlakshmi, 1998 ACJ 5715 and New India Insurance Company Limited Vs. R. Jailakshmi 2000 (3) Madras Law Weekly 595 respectively held that such a license will not be taken as valid driving license to drive a heavy goods vehicle. In United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kamal @ Kamla Devi 1999 2 PLR 311, it was held that there could be no distinction between a heavy goods vehicle or a heavy passenger motor vehicle. The Court observed that there was nothing to indicate that a person that held a license to drive heavy motor vehicle as being not competent to drive a bus. Again in the decision in Partap Singh Vs. Sharmila 1997 ACJ 558 the Court held in relation to an endorsement that did not contain a reference to a transport vehicle during the period before the amendment was brought that a person having a driving license for a heavy motor vehicle could be taken as competent to drive a truck which was a heavy motor vehicle although, not stated specifically as a heavy goods vehicle. I will therefore take the two decisions given of this Court as covering situation, that the present case contends with. The reference was to heavy motor vehicle but in my view that it would not make any difference that the driver was driving a passenger vehicle. 3. The liability cast on the Insurance Company under such circumstances shall be seen to be justified. The award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE March 7, 2011 archana