IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1219 of 2000 (O&M) Date of decision:20.05.2011 National Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Sunil and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Sanjiv Pabbi, Advocate, for the appellant. None for the respondents. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The only point involved in the appeal is whether a person, who drives a motor vehicle with an endorsement of LMV, could be said to be duly licensed if he was driving a scooter. A scooter or motorcycle is distinct category within LMV and the form and content of licence as specified in Section 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act read with form 6 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules would require a specific reference to scooter or motorcycle. If such an endorsement was not there, a mere possession of a driving licence for a car cannot be said to cover a licence FAO No.1219 of 2000 (O&M) - 2 - for scooter or motorcycle as well. The driving skills for motorcycle, scooter or four wheeler light motor vehicle are different. When the document was produced by the Insurance Company unless it was brought home through the evidence of the insured himself that the driving licence was in fact only meant for the scooter, it cannot be said that the scooterist was duly licensed. 2. I would hold, therefore, that a mere endorsement to drive a LMV cannot be understood as a licence to drive a scooter. The driver had a learner's licence and if it were to be taken that the learner's licence is also a valid licence subject to certain conditions mentioned under the Act itself, then the learner's licence for a light motor vehicle cannot be taken to be valid licence to drive a scooter. 3. The Insurance Company's liability shall only be to satisfy the claim but it shall have a right of recovery against the owner and driver. The award stands modified to provide for such a right. 4. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 20.05.2011 sanjeev