F.A.O.NO. 5535 OF 2009(O&M), F.A.O.NO. 5536 OF 2009(O&M) and 1 F.A.O.NO. 5537 OF 2009(O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.NO. 5535 OF 2009(O&M) Date of decision:19th August, 2010 United India Insurance Company Limited .......Appellant Versus Narender Kumar and others ........Respondents F.A.O.No. 5536 of 2009(O&M) United India Insurance Company Ltd. ......Appellant Versus Suman and others .....Respondents F.A.O.NO. 5537 of 2009(O&M) United India Insurance Company Ltd. .......Appellant Versus Rajbir and others ......Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Raj Kumar Bashamboo, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate, for the claimants. Mr. Kanwar Bhan Sidhu, Advocate, for respondent No. 3. 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) F.A.O.NO. 5535 OF 2009(O&M), F.A.O.NO. 5536 OF 2009(O&M) and 2 F.A.O.NO. 5537 OF 2009(O&M) 1. In this batch of cases the Insurance Company seeks for exclusion of liability on the ground that the driver did not have a licence to drive a Heavy Transport Vehicle. The licence produced before the Court showed that he had a licence to drive Light Motor Vehile, Auto Rickshaw, MCY, GR, Transport Vehicle. The licence to drive other than transport vehicle was valid from 8.10.2002 to 7.10.2002. The licence to drive a transport vehicle was valid from 26.02.2005 to 25.02.2008. The accident took place on 11.04.2007. The contention of the learned counsel for the insurer is that the transport vehicle endorsement was only to drive the Light Motor Vehicle category and not the Heavy Goods Vehicle. Learned counsel would also state that the driving skills which are necessary for Light Motor Vehicle and Heavy Goods Vehicle are different and therefore, mere transport vehicle endorsement would not be sufficient unless it is also proved that the transport vehicle endorsement was for a higher category of vehicle then how it was originally secured by the driver. 2. The form of application for a driver to secure the driving licence is set out in Form 4 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules 1989. The categories of vehicles which are found in the said form are a replication of what are found under Section 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act. There is a category like the Light Motor Vehicle and another category is the Transport Vehicle. The Transport Vehicle is defined under Section 2(47) of the Act means a private service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational F.A.O.NO. 5535 OF 2009(O&M), F.A.O.NO. 5536 OF 2009(O&M) and 3 F.A.O.NO. 5537 OF 2009(O&M) institution bus. Even the form of licence is a form which satisfies merely makes reference to an endorsement to drive a Transport Vehicle and does not state anywhere whether it shall be for a Heavy Goods Vehicle or for a Light Motor Vehicle. If the skills of driving are different and a transport vehicle licence is given for a lower category of vehicle then it shall become necessary for the insurer not merely to show that the Transport Vehicle licence with the driver did not belong to a higher category but only to a lower category. The insurer must take up on itself the burden to produce such necessary proof. If in the application for licence or in the form of licence if there is no particular category of a Heavy Transport Vehicle then it shall not avail to the insurer to contend that the particular licence produced before the Tribunal could not be taken to mean that the driver was not duly licenced. If it was shown that the driver had a Transport Vehicle endorsement that would suffice unless any other specific requirement is brought out under the terms of the policy or under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act itself. 3. The liability cast on the insurer under such circumstances is justified and there is no warrant for interference. The appeals are consequently dismissed. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 19th August, 2010 Shivani Kaushik