F.A.O.NOs. 107 and 108 OF 2002 and F.A.O.No. 2745 of 2002 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.NO. 107 OF 2002 Date of decision:9th September, 2010 M/s The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Regional Office, S.C.O.No. 109-110-111, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh through Sh. Navneet Doda, Asst. Manager, duly constituted attorney. .......Appellant Versus Monica and others ........Respondents F.A.O.NO. 108 OF 2002 M/s The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Regional Office, S.C.O.No. 109-110-111, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh through Sh. Navneet Doda, Asst. Manager, duly constituted attorney. .......Appellant Versus Baldev Singh and others ........Respondents F.A.O.No. 2745 of 2002 Sangeeta Arora ......Appellant Versus Karambir Singh and others ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Raj Kumar Bashamboo, Advocate, for the Insurance Company. None for the respondents. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?Yes/No F.A.O.NOs. 107 and 108 OF 2002 and F.A.O.No. 2745 of 2002 2 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. Out of the above three appeals FAO Nos. 107 and 108 of 2002 address the issue of the validity of the driving licence. The driver initially had a Light Motor Vehicle Licence and later, an endorsement to drive the Transport Vehicle was also made with effect from 29.05.1998. The accident took place on 29.01.2000 and the licence covers the period of the accident as well. The Tribunal has found that the endorsement of the transport vehicle is sufficient to take a decision that the driver was having a valid licence and he was duly licenced to drive the transport vehicle. The plea of the Insurance Company was rejected by the Tribunal which in my view is correct and would call for no intervention in appeal. The appeals by the Insurance Company therefore, stand dismissed. 2. There is no representation on behalf of the claimants for enhancement of compensation in the appeal i.e. FAO No. 2745 of 2002. The appeal is dismissed for default for appearance of the appellants. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 9th September, 2010 Shivani Kaushik