IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO No.: 122 of 2007 Date of decision : 30.05.2011 Budhi Singh …Appellant. Versus Sanjeev Kumar and others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant: Mr. Vivek Thakur, Advocate. For the respondent No.1.: Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent No.2: Mr. Vipan Rajta, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. 1. The appellant is the owner, who is aggrieved by the award because the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has exonerated the Insurance Company and held the owner liable to pay the compensation. 2. It is not in dispute that the vehicle which was involved in the accident is a mini bus, which is a light passenger motor vehicle and unladen weight is less than 6000 kilogram. An application filed by the owner during the course of this appeal for leading additional evidence was allowed and the statement of one witness recorded. The witness in question is the Junior Assistant from the office of Registering and Licensing Authority, Ghumarwin. He had also produced the original record and copies of the extract of the record have been duly exhibited. The first entry number is 2179 of 1995 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? yes. 2 wherein a licence has been granted to Shri Pawan Kumar S/o Atma Ram for driving a light motor vehicle. This driving licence is valid from 22.3.1995 to 21.3.1998. This entry is Ext.R-1/A. The next relevant entry is Ext.R-1/B which shows that the driving licence issued in favour of Pawan Kumar was renewed on 23.3.1998 till 20.3.2001. In this also the category of the vehicle is shown as Light Motor Vehicle. The most important entry is that contained in Ext.R-1/C, which is dated 28.3.2001, which shows that the driving licence of Shri Pawan Kumar was renewed w.e.f. 21.3.2001 to 25.3.2004 and in this it is clearly mentioned that there is an endorsement to drive a transport vehicle. Unfortunately, when this license was renewed in 2004 it was not reflected in the record that the license had already been endorsed for driving a transport vehicle and therefore, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that there is nothing on record to show that the driver had valid driving licence. Furthermore, RW-1/A which has been produced by the Insurance Company itself and is a copy of the driving licence of Pawan Kumar clearly depicts that the driving licence was granted for a light motor vehicle (tpt), which obviously means transport vehicle. 3. Reading all this evidence together, it is more than evident that the driver held a valid driving licence which had an endorsement to drive a transport vehicle of the light motor vehicle category. Therefore, the award of the learned Tribunal is set-aside and the Insurance Company is held liable to satisfy the award. No costs. 30th May, 2011 ( Deepak Gupta ) ™ Judge.