IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1733 of 2000 (O&M) Date of decision:01.10.2010 United India Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Chandgi Ram and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Ravinder Mohan Suri, Advocate, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. R.K.Agnihotri, Advocate, for respondents 1 and 2. Mr. Kapil Aggarwal, Advocate, for respondents 3 and 4. ---- 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) The Insurance Company is in appeal challenging the liability on the ground that the driver did not have a valid driving licence. The vehicle involved was a truck and hence a transport vehicle. The Insurance Company produced the licensing Clerk from the Transport Office, Pali as RW1, who gave evidence to the effect that the licence, which was issued in the year 1977, was only for a medium motor vehicle and it had been renewed from time to time and it was last renewed on 01.07.1995 that was valid upto 30.06.1998. He had also stated that the register contained an entry that he had been authorized to drive a light FAO No.1733 of 2000 (O&M) - 2 - motor vehicle as well as heavy transport vehicle w.e.f. 30.03.1999. The accident took place on 04.09.1996. Evidently, the driver did not have a valid driving licence at the relevant time. The Tribunal rejected the contention of the insurer only on the ground that the licensing authority did not produce the file regarding endorsement dated 30.03.1990. The non-production is immaterial, for, even if an adverse inference was to be drawn, it could extend only to making an inference that the endorsement is valid and it will be effective from the date which it contained. When the driving licence produced by the driver himself did not contain any transport vehicle endorsement, it will be futile for the Court to look for any further proof. A mere light motor vehicle licence or medium motor vehicle cannot avail to a driver or owner to contend that he was duly licensed. Having regard to the fact that the offending vehicle was admittedly a transport vehicle, the fact that the driving licence did not carry a transport vehicle endorsement as required under Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the driver cannot be said to be duly licensed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in National Insurance Company Limited Versus Challa Bharathamma and others-2005(1) PLR 102 that the insurer will not be liable in a case where there is no valid transport vehicle endorsement. The appeal is allowed securing to the insurer a right of recovery against the owner/insured. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 01.10.2010 sanjeev