IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.446 of 1998 (O&M) Date of decision:28.09.2010 National Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Roopa Devi and others ....Respondents II. FAO No.1007 of 1998 (O&M) Roopa Devi and another ....Appellants versus Ajmer Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate, for Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate, for the appellant in FAO No.446 of 1998 and for respondent No.3 in FAO No.1007 of 1998. None for others. ---- 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 was not duly licensed. The driver had a licence to drive car, jeep and motorcycle. The driver was said to be driving a matador van which had been shown in the registration FAO No.446 of 1998 (O&M) - 2 - certificate as a light motor vehicle. It had a capacity for 9 +1. I do not see how it could be stated that the driver did not have a valid driving licence when even the driving licence showed that it was a light motor vehicle and that was precisely the licence which the driver had. A mere reference to the fact that it was a passenger vehicle cannot make it a transport vehicle. A light motor vehicle could just as well be a passenger vehicle in so far as it carries passengers. It will have come by a different meaning only in a case where it is either a private public service or public service vehicle or a goods carriage or an educational institution bus to qualify for the definition of a transport vehicle as laid down under Section 2(47). The mere fact that the capacity of the light motor vehicle was 9+1, cannot lead to an inference that it could have been used only as a transport vehicle. 2. The liability cast on the Insurance Company shall, under the circumstances, be justified. The appeal by the insurer in FAO No.446 of 1998 is dismissed. There is also an appeal in FAO No.1007 of 1998 for enhancement of compensation, but there is no representation for the claimants. The appeal by the claimants is, therefore, dismissed for default of appearance. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 28.09.2010 sanjeev