FAO No.462 of 1997 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.462 of 1997 Date of Decision. 13.08.2010 United India Insurance Company Limited, Sector 8, Chandigarh through its Manager ......Appellant Versus Subhash Chand son of Shri Des Raj Chopra, resident of Amargarh Majhra, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. Vinod Chaudhari, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. A.S. Virk, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 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. 1. The insurance company urges for an issue of exclusion of liability on the ground that the driver, who was driving offending vehicle did not have a valid driving licence. The policy of insurance was for a goods carriage, which was a transport vehicle and the insured's driver, who was driving the vehicle and caused the accident had merely a licence to drive a car and jeep only. Referring to the provisions of Section 2(26) of the Motor Vehicles Act that defined the motor car other than a transport vehicle omni bus etc., it was argued that a transport vehicle, which is defined under Section 2(47) includes a goods carriage and Section 3 requires a special FAO No.462 of 1997 -2- endorsement therefor. The Tribunal rejected the plea of the insurer holding that if a driver was holding a light motor vehicle licence or was authorized to drive a heavy vehicle, there was no prohibition against driving a transport vehicle. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the insurance company refers to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Angad Kol and others (2009) 11 SCC 356. The decision addressed a situation of a driver of goods carriage driving the vehicle having merely a light motor vehicle licence with no endorsement to drive a transport vehicle. Referring to the provisions of Section 3 and 14 of the Motor Vehicles Act that detail the different categories of licences that could be granted, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the licence granted for driving each category of vehicle specifically contained remarks or endorsement to that effect and if the vehicle in question was a good carriage and the driver did not have a licence to drive such category of vehicle, the breach of condition of policy must be taken to have been established and provided for a right of recovery after satisfying the claim to the insurer against the insured. 3. As regards this, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent relies on yet another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Annappa Irappa Nesaria alias Nesaragi and others (2008) 3 SCC 464. The case involved the driving of a light goods vehicle by a driver, who had a light motor vehicle licence. The Court observed that Forms under the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 providing for the manner in FAO No.462 of 1997 -3- which the licence was to be granted had been amended only by GSR 221(e) w.e.f. 28.03.2001 and only in that amendment, the driving licence specifically provided for a reference to drive a transport vehicle. Earlier, the reference in Form No.4 application to obtain a driving licence contained merely a reference to light motor vehicle, medium goods vehicle, heavy goods vehicle or motor vehicle of certain descriptions. This was modified by the aforesaid GSR to include a transport vehicle which took within its definition light goods vehicle, medium goods vehicle or heavy goods vehicle. The attempt of the learned counsel, therefore, was to show that if a driver had licence to drive a light motor vehicle, it would have bestowed him with authority to drive a goods carriage. In my view, the arguments in defence by the counsel for the respondent is not tenable. In Annappa Irappa Nesaria's case the reference was to possession of licence for a light motor vehicle and the Court said that it included a light goods vehicle also. In this case, the particular category of vehicle that the person was driving was not first elicited as a light goods vehicle. Even without reference to Rules and the Forms, the requirement of an endorsement for a transport vehicle always existed under Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act. If a person, who was having light motor vehicle licence had not obtained a special authorization and badge to drive a transport vehicle, it could not be stated that he was duly licenced. Here it is not merely a form of licence that we are concerned with. The issue is whether the licence carried an endorsement to drive a transport vehicle which is a statutory mandate under Section 3 of FAO No.462 of 1997 -4- the Motor Vehicles Act. It was this aspect, which was considered in Angad Kol's case and in my view, the said judgment squarely covers the issue at hand. 4. I hold that the driver did not have a valid driving licence at the time of the accident and the liability of the insurer shall be only to satisfy the claim of the claimants with the right of recovery against the insured. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 13, 2010 Pankaj*