FAO No.1068 of 2009 [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... F.A.O.No.1068 of 2009(O&M) Decided on : July 13, 2009 Sham Sunder Chopra ... Appellant VERSUS The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Surinder Garg, Advocate for the appellant. Ms.Vandana Malhotra, Advocate for respondent No.1. A.N.JINDAL, J.- This appeal preferred by the appellant (owner of the offending vehicle) Sham Sunder Chopra (herein referred as `the appellant') is directed against the award dated 25.7.2008 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridkot, whereby, a compensation to the tune of Rs.6,80,000/- was awarded to claimant Pushpa widow of deceased Tulsi Ram on account of the death of her husband. Since, the Tribunal further held that the owner had committed violations of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as his driver was not holding a valid driving license for driving the canter, therefore, gave liberty to the Insurance Company – respondent No.1 to recover the awarded amount from the appellant. The brief facts of the case are that Tulsi Ram son of Nathu Ram FAO No.1068 of 2009 [ 2 ] died in a road accident on account of the rash and negligent driving of the Canter bearing Reg.No.PB-04K-9852 by its driver Jasbir Singh – respondent No.7. Undisputedly, the vehicle was insured with respondent No.1. The claim petition was decided by the Tribunal while holding respondent No.7 as negligent and fixing the liability of the respondent No.1 to pay the compensation. However, it had been given liberty to recover the same from the appellant, who is the owner of the offending vehicle. The crucial question involved in the case is, whether respondent No.7, who was holding a valid driving license for light transport vehicles, could drive the Canter i.e,. the offending vehicle and whether the Canter falls within the category of heavy transport vehicles. Heard. There is no denying a fact that the appellant was having a valid licence for driving Light Transport Vehicle. The term `LTV' has been clarified in sub Section 2(21), which reads as under:- “(21) “light motor vehicle” means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road-roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7500] kilograms;” On perusal of the aforesaid sub section, it is apparent that the offending vehicle i.e. Canter falls in the category of Light Transport Vehicles. In no way, the offending vehicle i.e. Canter can be included in the category of `Heavy Transport Vehicles', because unladen weight of it is given as `3580' Kgs and the total gross weight is `11900' Kgs. As such, it FAO No.1068 of 2009 [ 3 ] does not exceed 7500 Kgs, as provided under the Act. Moreover, the Regional Transport Authority, Ferozepur has issued permit regarding goods carriage for hire or reward and in that permit, the type of vehicle has been mentioned as `LTV' and the date of expiry of that permit is 22.08.2011, which shows that the offending vehicle i.e. Canter bearing Reg.No.PB-04K- 9852 is a Light Transport Vehicle. Resultantly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No.4 deserve to be set aside. So far as the other issues are concerned, the respondent – Insurance Company has also not preferred any appeal challenging the findings of the Tribunal on those issues. Consequently, the appeal is accepted and the impugned award is modified to the extent that the findings on issue No.4 are set aside and it is held that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation as there was no violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. July 13, 2009 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE