IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.3879 of 2006 (O&M) Date of decision:25.10.2010 United India Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Smt. Parmod and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Ajit Sihag, Advocate, for respondents 1 to 3. None for respondents 4 to 7. ---- 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 Insurance Company is in appeal challenging liability on the ground that the driver did not have a valid driving licence and that further the deceased was said to be travellig in a trailer attached to a tractor. It was further contended that there was no FIR showing the involvement of the vehicle. A DDR had, however, been entered showing the involvement of the vehicle. The accident was said to have taken place when a cow came across the road and in an attempt to save the same, the driver of the tractor swerved to one side and the vehicle turned turtle killing the deceased. 2. As regards the contention regarding to the driving licence, FAO No.3879 of 2006 (O&M) - 2 - the admitted fact was that the driver of the vehicle had a light motor vehicle licence. The report brought by the Insurance Company was that it had not been issued in the name of the driver but was held to be not proved on the ground that no one connected with the document from the licensing authority had been examined. While the finding relating to the inadequate proof of the fake character of the licence cannot be doubted, the case would still require consideration on whether on the admitted contentions of parties, the Insurance Company could still be made liable. The admitted case was that the driver had a light motor vehicle licence. The accident, however, was by a person, who was travelling in a trailer and the further admitted fact being that the trailer was attached to a tractor, it should be only taken as a goods carriage. It was, therefore, a transport vehicle. A transport vehicle requires a special endorsement under Section 3 of the MV Act. If there was no special endorsement on the driving licence then the driver could not be said to be duly licensed. The insurer's liability in such a situation would extend no more than for satisfying the claim of the claimants and the insurer will have a right of recovery against the owner of the vehicle for violation of terms of policy. 3. The award of the Tribunal is, therefore, modified to provide for a right of recovery to the insurer against the insured/owner of the tractor after satisfying the claim of the claimants. 4. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 25.10.2010 sanjeev