IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA: FAO.No. 525/2000 Date of Decision: 17th November ,2008. New India Assurance Company. …Appellant. Versus: Sh. Subhash Chand and others. …Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting?1 . For the appellant: Mr.Anup Rattan, Advocate. For Respondent-1. Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent-2&3. Mr.Romesh Verma, Advocate. For Respondent No.5. Mr.B.N.Sharma, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, J(Oral) . It is a common case of the parties that the issue raised by the appellant, insurer M/s New India Assurance Company Limited is squarely covered by a decision rendered by a Full Bench of this Court in FAO.No. 307 of 1998, titled as Prem Singh vs. Baldassi, dated 30th September, 2008. This Court on 18th October, 2005 passed the following orders: “One of the points involved in this case is, “Whether a license permitting the holder to drive a light motor vehicle entitles him to drive a transport vehicle or not”? This question has been 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 referred to a larger Bench in FAO No.307 of 1998. Therefore, it is ordered that this appeal may be listed for hearing after the larger Bench decides the question(s) in FAO No. 307 of 1998.” The decision delivered by the Full Bench of this Court in FAO.No.307 of 1998 decided on 30th September, 2008 has been placed on record by the Registry. The insurer is aggrieved against the impugned award dated 19th July, 2000 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Solan, District Solan, H.P. in M.A.C. No. 23-S/2 of 1994, titled as Subhash Chand vs. State of Haryana and others. In terms of the impugned award, a sum of Rs.1,20,960/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum has been awarded in favour of the claimant Shri Subhash Chand. The claimant received injuries in an accident which took place on 9.12.1993 between Vehicle No. HP-02- 3551 (Maruti Van, Taxi) and Bus No. HR-26-A-1138. It appears that the driver of the Maruti Van also died in the said accident. It was a case of contributory negligence. The Tribunal as such also held the driver of the Maruti Van negligent in having driven the vehicle in which the claimant was travelling. As such, the liability to pay the awarded compensation was fastened both on respondents No. 1 and 2, the owners of the Bus on the one hand and respondent No.5 Shri Ajay Dogra, the owner of the Maruti Van, on the other to 3 the extent of 50% each. Since the Maruti Van was insured by the New India Assurance Company Limited and its driver was held to have possessed an effective and valid driving license and there was no breach of the terms of the policy, therefore, the liability to pay 50% of the compensation was fastened upon the insurer, the present appellant. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) was neither sought for nor granted by the Tribunal, therefore, the scope of challenge in the present appeal is quite narrow. Mr. Anup Rattan has vehemently argued that the compensation awarded is much on the higher side. It is a matter on record that no permission was either sought for nor granted by the court permitting the insurer to take defence other than the statutory defence permissible to the insurer. Therefore the contention needs to be rejected. The deceased, driver of the Maruti Van Shri Rajesh was possessing a license (Ext.RW-1/B) is not in dispute. The same in any case stands proved on record by Shri Santokh Singh (RW-1) and Shri Onkar Chand Dogra (RW-7). In terms of the said license he was authorized to drive light motor vehicle. Admittedly, the vehicle in question was a transport vehicle. 4 A Full Bench of this Court while deciding FAO No 307 of 1998 on 30th September, 2008 took into account the decision of the apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Annappa Irappa Nesaria alias Nesaragi and others, (2008) 3 SCC 464 wherein it has been and held that a person possessing a valid driving license to drive a light motor vehicle would be authorized to drive a “light goods vehicle” which includes a “light passenger carriage vehicle” and “light goods carriage vehicle”. In effect, the reference was answered by holding that the driving license permitting the holder of the license to drive a light motor vehicle also entitled him to drive a transport vehicle. Even though it is not so specified in the judgment but the court was dealing with the statute as it stood prior to its amendment w.e.f. 28th March, 2001. Therefore, in my view, the driver was entitled to drive the vehicle in question and it cannot be said that he was not possessing an effective and valid driving license to drive the vehicle at the time of the accident. The Tribunal has rightly held so. I see no reason to interfere with the award, the appeal is accordingly dismissed. (Sanjay Karol), November 17, 2008(R) Judge.