FAO No.998 of 2000 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.998 of 2000 Date of Decision. 21.07.2010 New India Assurance Company Ltd., SCO 36-37, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh through its Regional Manager .........Appellant Versus Sant Ram S/o Raja Ram and others .......Respondents Present: Mr. Deepak Suri, Advocate and Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondents. 2. FAO No.2054 of 2000 Sant Ram S/o Raja Ram and another .........Appellants Versus The Principal A.K.S. International Public School, Sector 41-B, Chandigarh (owner of the Bus No.CH-1-H-4497) and others .......Respondents Present: None for the appellants. Mr. Deepak Suri, Advocate and Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for respondent No.2-insurance company. 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.(ORAL) 1. Both the appeals are taken up together as arising out of same cause of action. The insurance company is in appeal challenging the award providing for no right of recovery against the FAO No.998 of 2000 -2- insured in case where the driver was known to have possessed a licence that bore an endorsement for driving a heavy goods vehicle and not for a heavy passenger vehicle. The vehicle involved in the accident was a passenger vehicle and the insurance cover was for passenger travelling in such a vehicle. The breach of condition in the policy relating to driver's licence must relate to what the Act contains with reference to the form and contents of licence to drive as prescribed under Section 10. The licence form provides Under Section 10 (2) (e) a transport vehicle, which necessarily includes a passenger vehicle as well as a goods vehicle. So long as the Act does not make such a distinction, the insurance company, in my view, shall not be entitled to exclude its liability to indemnify the insured. 2. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. 3. The appeal by the claimants is for enhancement of the claim to compensation for death of a boy aged 14 years. The claimants were parents. The Tribunal has adopted a notional income of Rs.12,000/- per annum and has provided for the compensation as Rs.2,02,200/-. There is no basis made for any enhancement. 4. The award passed by the Tribunal stands confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 21, 2010 Pankaj*