FAO No.2927 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2927 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision.21.12.2010 Vasudev son of Shri Ram Gopal, resident of Shop No.85, Nai Anaj Mandi, Hisar (Driver and owner of offending Tata 407 bearing registration NO.HR 39/2479) ......Appellant Versus Gurnam Singh and others ......Respondents 2. FAO No.2929 of 2010 Vasudev son of Shri Ram Gopal, resident of Shop No.85, Nai Anaj Mandi, Hisar (Driver and owner of offending Tata 407 bearing registration NO.HR 39/2479) ......Appellant Versus Mangal Singh and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. R.N. Lohan, Advocate for the appellant. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. In both the cases, the appeal by the owner is to the effect that the vehicle Tata 407 was a light motor vehicle but the Tribunal has provided for right of recovery for the insurer against the insured on the ground that the driver was not duly licenced. I do not find any fault with the reasoning of the Tribunal. The fact that the particular vehicle was a light motor vehicle does not answer the whole story. All the provisions of Section 2 regarding the categories of vehicle are not FAO No.2927 of 2010 (O&M) -2- mutually exclusive. A light motor vehicle could still be a transport vehicle if it is used for a commercial purpose or it was used for transport of goods. In this case, it was a transport vehicle answering the definition by Section 2(47). If it was a transport vehicle then necessity for having a transport vehicle endorsement under Section 3 shall be mandatory. A transport vehicle licence is also prescribed in a specific form under Form 6 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules. If the driver did not have a transport vehicle endorsement, it cannot be stated that he was duly licenced, although he had a light motor vehicle licence. The finding of the Tribunal relating to the liability of the owner is, therefore, perfectly justified and there is no scope for interference in appeals. 2. Both the appeals are dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE December 21, 2010 Pankaj*