FAO No.1181 of 2004 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1181 of 2004 Date of Decision. 30.08.2010 Oriental Insurance Company Limited, through its Deputy Manager, SCO No.109-111, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh ......Appellant Versus Surjeet Kaur wife of Sh. Prem Singh and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 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 only short point for consideration in the appeal by the insurer is the liability cast on it rejecting its defence that the driver was not duly licenced to drive the vehicle. The vehicle involved in the accident was a light motor vehicle, which was used for a purpose of carriage of goods. It was an open truck whose unladen weight was less than 3,000 kgs. The licence, which the driver had, was to drive a light motor vehicle and it took such a licence to be sufficient to drive a truck, which was a goods carriage and which was used as a transport vehicle in terms of the policy of insurance. The requirement to carry a transport vehicle endorsement comes through a statutory mandate under Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The FAO No.1181 of 2004 -2- form of application prescribed under Form 6 Under the Central Motor Vehicle Rules also makes this distinction that for a transport vehicle, there shall be a requisition and an express permission to drive such a transport vehicle. The case should not have been examined merely with reference to the unladen weight of the vehicle but it should have been also considered from the point of view of the purpose for which the vehicle was to be used and the manner in which the policy of insurance had been taken. The driver was not duly licenced in terms of Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Insurance Company ought not to have been left without being provided with a right of recovery against the insured. 2. The award of the Tribunal is modified to make the insurer liable to satisfy the claimant with the right of recovery against the insured. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 30, 2010 Pankaj*