In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh F.A.O. No. 3403 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: August 11, 2009 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited .. Appellant Vs. Mohinder Kaur and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. A.N. Jindal, J This is an appeal filed by the Insurance Company against the award dated 9.3.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala, whereby the claim petition filed by the respondents No.1 and 2 was accepted and an award for a sum of Rs.7,33,600/- was passed in favour of the respondent No.1 and 2 along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till actual realization. The respondent No.3 is the driver of Jeep bearing registration No.HR-69-3424. The claim petition was contested by the driver-respondent No.3 as well as the appellant. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :- 1. Whether deceased Achhra Singh died in a motor accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle i.e. Jeep bearing registration No.HR- 69-3424 by its driver respondent No.1 Salamudden in the area of bus stand, Bhajkherpur, Tehsil Dera Bassi on 10.4.2007?OPA 2. Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?OPA 3. Whether the driver of vehicle i.e. Jeep bearing registration No.HR-69-3424 was not holding valid and effective Driving Licence at the time of accident? If so, its effect?OPR-2 4. Relief. F.A.O. No. 3403 of 2009 -2- *** The issues No.1 and 2 were decided in favour of the respondents No.1 and 2, whereas, issue No.3 was decided against the Insurance Company. The main plank of the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company is that Salamudden driver was not holding a valid driving licence (Ex.R-2) to drive a jeep, therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay the compensation. There is no denying a fact that the accident took place with jeep bearing registration No.HR-69-3424. The respondent No.3 was having a valid driving licence for motor cycle, car and jeep and it was renewed up to 26.8.2009. No evidence has come forth to disclose if the said jeep was a transport/commercial vehicle. It has also come on record that the said Mahindra Pick Up jeep had a gross weight of 2750 kgs, therefore, the Tribunal rightly followed the judgment delivered in case Hardhian Singh vs. Chiranji Lal and others 2003, ACJ 565, wherein it was held that when the driver was driving tempo and he was having licence to drive scooter, motor cycle, car and jeep, then he would be held to be holding a valid driving licence and the Insurance Company was held liable. Similar is the position in the present case. Resultantly, it would be observed that the respondent No.3 was holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident. Consequently, this appeal being unmerited is hereby dismissed. August 11, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge