FAO No.972 of 1986 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.972 of 1986 Date of decision: 8.7.2009 New India Assurance ......Appellant Versus Smt. Karam Kaur etc. ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for the appellant. * * * Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. By way of the present appeal, the appellant-Insurance Company has challenged the order dated 1.10.1986 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bathinda in MACT No.12 of 12.8.1985 whereby the claimants (respondents No.1 to 6) were held entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- as compensation on account of death of Pritam Singh son of Fateh Singh, resident of Rampura Mandi who died in a motor vehicular accident on 11.2.1985. The only ground raised before this Court to challenge the impugned order is that the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a licence enabling him to drive a private car and there was no special endorsement on it to enable him to drive a taxi as contemplated under the Provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the amount since the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy Ex.R-3 have been violated. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the FAO No.972 of 1986 2 record of the appeal. While passing the impugned order, the Tribunal has recorded a finding that driver of the offending vehicle was having a valid driving licence to drive a light motor vehicle. In the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Annappa Irappa Nesaria and others,2008 (2) Accident Claims Journal 721, the argument was raised that light motor vehicle does not answer the description of a transport vehicle and while rejecting this argument, the Hon'ble Apex Court after noticing the provisions of the old and new motor vehicle Act held that the “light motor vehicle” continues to cover both light passenger carriage vehicle and light goods carriage vehicle and a driver who had a valid licence to drive a light motor vehicle, therefore, was authorised to drive a light goods vehicle as well. It was further held in the aforesaid judgment that the amendments carried out in the rules having a prospective operation, the licence held by the driver of the vehicle in question cannot be said to be invalid in law. In view of the aforesaid settled proposition of law, I find no merit in this appeal. Dismissed. July 8, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE FAO No.972 of 1986 3 FAO No.972 of 1986 4