F.A.O.NO. 7196 OF 2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.NO. 7196 OF 2010(O&M) Date of decision:6th December, 2010 Suraj Bhan son of Shri Ram Chander, resident of village khewra, Tehsil and District Sonepat, driver and owner of three-wheeler No. HR- 69-4970. .......Appellant Versus Future General Insurance Company Limited and others ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Ashit Malik, 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) Civil Misc. No. 31102-CII of 2010 Allowed as prayed for. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 229 days in filing the appeal is condoned. FAO No. 7196 of 2010(O&M) 1. The exemption is sought for on the ground that the Insurance Company has already satisfied the award and by view of judgment of the Division Bench of this Court an exemption could be F.A.O.NO. 7196 OF 2010(O&M) 2 granted where the claimants have been satisfied. The appellant is therefore, exempted from depositing the money. 2. The appellant is aggrieved against the direction granted in favour of the insurer to satisfy the claim of the claimants and recover the same against the owner. Vehicle of the owner had been insured as a commercial vehicle and the limitations of use as seen from the policy was that it should be used for carriage/contract carriage/goods carriage private service vehicle. All these refers to the categorisation of a vehicle as a transport vehicle. All these categories fall within the definition of transport vehicle under Section 2(47) of the Motor Vehicles Act(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The vehicle which is described in the policy also states that it is piaggo AP pick up vehicle. Evidently, it was a vehicle meant for transport of goods. 3. The driver had a driving licence to drive a car or jeep. The learned counsel would contend that the commercial vehicle has not been denied anywhere in the Act and therefore, the licence that he held for jeep or a car would include the licence to drive the three wheeler also. It is also contended that since the policy talks about only a commercial motor policy, it shall not be taken as constituting any violation of policy if the driver had a valid driving licence to drive a Light Motor Vehicle. According to him, a three wheeler whose gross weight 680 kgs would still be a light motor vehicle and therefore, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. v Swaran Singh (2004) 3 SCC 297 , the driver F.A.O.NO. 7196 OF 2010(O&M) 3 must be taken to be duly licenced. 4. In my view, these contentions are not tenable in law. The policy which spells out commercial use is by the description of the vehicle is a pick up van and the user which are set out in the policy being confined to carry goods obviously refers to the user of the vehicle as a transport vehicle. In fact the limitations as to use found in the policy are a replication of the mode of user prescribed for a transport vehicle. The statement that the vehicle was a three wheeler and therefore, a light motor vehicle states only one part of the story. The definitions contained under Section 2 of the Act are not mutually exclusive. There may be overlapping of categories vehicle and when we are addressing the issue of whether a person was duly licenced or not, we will have to look into the provisions of Chapter II of the Motor Vehicles Act. A transport vehicle which may be incidentally also a light motor vehicle would require driver of a transport vehicle to obtain a special endorsement to drive a transport vehicle under Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act. If his licence did not carry the special endorsement, it cannot be stated that he was having a valid licence. This point has been brought out by several decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and to our purpose would be the decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Cholleti Bharatmma and others (2008) 1 SCC 423 and the decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Prabhu Lal (2008) ACJ 627. 5. The award of the Tribunal casting the liability on the F.A.O.NO. 7196 OF 2010(O&M) 4 owner was under circumstances perfectly justified and the appeal by the owner is dismissed. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 6th December, 2010 Shivani Kaushik