FAO Nos.1874 and 1875 of 2008 =1= In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Date of decision:28.07.2008. (1) FAO No.1874 of 2008 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. ... Appellant. Versus Smt.Rajbir Kaur and others ... Respondents. (2) FAO No.1875 of 2008 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. ... Appellant. Versus Smt.Sarvjeet Kaur and others ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present: Mr.Suman Jain,Advocate, for the appellants. -- PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral) Both these appeals are being disposed of by common judgment as they arise out of the same accident and the same award. These are Insurance Company's appeals against the awards dated 27.03.2008 passed in claim Petition No.79-MACT of 2006 and claim Petition No.69-MACT of 2006, passed by M.A.C.T., Fatehabad, whereby an award for Rs.5,71,536/- has been passed in claim Petition No.79-MACT of 2006 and for Rs.3,81,204/- in claim Petition No.69-MACT of 2006, in favour of the claimants. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has raised two FAO Nos.1874 and 1875 of 2008 =2= questions to challenge the impugned awards: (i) that the driver was not having effective driving licence as on the date of the accident i.e 14.05.2006. While referring to the statement of RW-1 Narender Kumar, Licence Clerk, it is argued that the licence of the driver was renewed from 23.05.2006 to 22.05.2011 and, thus, on the date of the accident, he was not holding valid and effective driving licence. It is admitted case of the appellants that licence was issued to the driver on 03.05.1991 and it was renewed from time to time. Though prior to 23.05.2006 there is no record of renewal which includes the date of accident, yet the fact remains that licence was renewed w.e.f. 23.05.2006. On this basis, it is stated that the Insurance Company is absolved of its liability. This issue is no more res- integra having been concluded by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Limited Vs. Swaran Singh and others, (2004) 3 SCC 297, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has specifically held that mere breach on the part of the insured is not sufficient to absolve the Insurance Company of the liability. The insurer has to prove by affirmative evidence that the accident is attributable to the deformity in the licence of the driver. Relevant observations of the Hon'ble Surpeme Court in Swaran Singh's case (supra) are as under:- “110. The summary of our findings to the various issues as raised in these petitions is as follows:- .................................... (vi) Even where the insurer is not able to prove breach on the part of the insured concerning the policy condition regarding holding of a valid FAO Nos.1874 and 1875 of 2008 =3= licence by the driver or his qualification to drive during the relevant period, the insurer would not be allowed to avoid its liability towards the insured unless the said breach or breaches on the condition of driving licence is/are so fundamental as are found to have contributed to the cause of the accident. The Tribunals in interpreting the policy conditions would apply “the rule of main purpose” and the concept of “fundamental breach” to allow defences available to the insurer under Section 149 (2) of the Act. ......................................” There is no allegation that the driver was not possessing the skill of driving. To the contrary, the renewal of the licence after the date of accident itself reveal that the driver had the skill of the driving and he was in possession of the valid driving licence. (ii) It is further argued that the driver was not holding a valid driving licence to drive a tractor. It is, however, admitted position that he was entitled to drive Light Transport Vehicle for which endorsement was made on his licence by way of addition of “LTV” on 15.09.1995. The tractor comes within the definition of Light Transport Vehicle if its unladen weight does not exceed 7500 kilograms. No evidence has been brought on record to prove that the weight of the tractor was beyond the prescribed weight under the Rules. This issue is also covered by a judgment of this Court in the case of Jeet alias Ajit Singh and another Vs. Poonam and others, 2007 (1) PLR 87, wherein the FAO Nos.1874 and 1875 of 2008 =4= following observations have been made:- “Merely because there is no specific authorization in the driving licence of the driver of the tractor in question, it would not automatically disentitle him from driving it. Since the authorization given in the driving licence of the driver is for the “light transport vehicle”, it would also automatically and by legal implication mean the authorization to drive a goods carriage vehicle as well, as long as the unladen weight of the vehicles does not exceed 7500 kilograms.” In view of the above, I find no merit in these appeals and the same are dismissed with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be placed on the file of F.A.O. No.1875 of 2008. 28.07.2008 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? YES