F.A.O.NO. 6795 OF 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.NO. 6795 OF 2010 Date of decision:15th November, 2010 United India Insurance Company Limited, having its Regional Office, at Sector-17, Chandigarh, through its Deputy Manager. .......Appellant Versus Jiwan Goyal and others ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Sanjiv Pabbi, Advocate, for the appellant. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?Yes/No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The Insurance Company is in appeal, challenging the liability on the ground that the driver had a licence to drive a heavy motor vehicle but he was driving at that relevant point of time a transport vehicle without a transport vehicle endorsement. The law has undergone a little change with reference to form and content. Section 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') underwent a change in an amendment through Act 53 of 1994 effective from 14.11.1994, substituting several categories like heavy goods vehicle, heavy passenger vehicle and heavy motor vehicle to, come within one single definition of 'transport vehicle'. A transport F.A.O.NO. 6795 OF 2010 2 vehicle itself is defined expressly under Section 2 (47) to mean “a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle”. The form and contents of the licence provide under Section 10 of the Act will have to be read in the context of what the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 provides for. Form VI replicates the same manner of categorisation as found under Section 10 and dispenses with categories like heavy goods vehicle, heavy passenger vehicle, heavy motor vehicle etc., and substitutes it with 'transport vehicle' by GSR 221(E) dated 28.03.2001(w.e.f. 28.03.2001). There could not have been a specific category like heavy motor vehicle after the amendment to Section 10 of the Act and if the Licencing Authority had issued a licence to a driver to drive a heavy motor vehicle, I will understand that to mean only a Transport vehicle. The driver or the owner cannot be allowed to suffer a loss by what the licencing authority failed to properly apply. 2. I would hold that the driver was duly licenced and the liability cast on the insurer was under circumstances justified. The appeal is dismissed. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 15th November, 2010 Shivani Kaushik