IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. FAO (MVA) 50 of 2006. Date of decision August 31, 2009. National Insurance Co. Ltd. ….Appellant. Versus Smt. Surmi Devi and others ….Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant Mr. Ashwani Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For respondents 1 to 5 Mr. B.S.Kanwar, Advocate. For respondents 6 and 7 Mr. G.D.Verma, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud, J. (Oral). This appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company against the judgment and order passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal allowing the claim petition of the respondents and awarding a sum of Rs.3,30,000/-. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has urged that the learned Tribunal was wrong in allowing the claim as the 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - driver of the vehicle was not possessed of a valid driving licence. He contends that issue No. 5 is against the evidence on record and that the vehicle involved in the accident was a light commercial vehicle whereas the licence Ex.R-2 only authorized driving of light motor vehicle. This licence was issued on 29.3.2000 and was valid up to 28.3.2005. The submission made by the learned counsel cannot be accepted. In National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Annappa Irappa Nesaria alias Nesaragi and others, (2008) 3 SCC 464, the Supreme Court has held that the amendments made in the Motor Vehicles Act requiring an endorsement that a licence issued for light motor vehicle should also contain an endorsement for goods/commercial vehicle in case it is so used, is not applicable to those of the licences issued prior to 28.3.2001. The Court held: “19. "Light Motor Vehicle" is defined in Section 2 (21) and, therefore, in view of the provision, as then existed, it included a light transport vehicle. Form 6 provides for the manner in which the licence is to be granted, the relevant portion whereof read as under: - 3 - "Authorization to drive transport vehicle Number. . . . . . . Date. . . . . . . . Authorised to drive transport vehicle with effect from. . . . . . . Badge number. . . . . . . . . Signature. . . . . Designation of the licensing authority. Name and designation of the authority who conducted the driving test." 20. From what has been noticed hereinbefore, it is evident that 'transport vehicle' has now been substituted for 'medium goods vehicle' and 'heavy goods vehicle'. The light motor vehicle continued, at the relevant point of time, to cover both, 'light passenger carriage vehicle' and 'light goods carriage vehicle'. A driver who had a valid licence to drive a light motor vehicle, therefore, was authorized to drive a light goods vehicle as well. 21. The amendments carried out in the Rules having a prospective operation, the licence held by the driver of the - 4 - vehicle in question cannot be said to be invalid in law.” On the other point, learned counsel urges that the vehicle was a private vehicle but was being plied as a commercial vehicle. Learned counsel has drawn my attention to Ex.R-3 which is the registration certificate of the motor vehicle involved in the accident. I do not find any settled issue before the Tribunal on this point. RW-1 Shri Rup Kumar Sharma, Senior Assistant, National Insurance Company has appeared as a witness. He states in the examination in chief that the vehicle in question is Mahindra Utility which is a transport vehicle. In order that the plea of the Insurance Company has to succeed, they were required to plead and prove on record not only that the vehicle in question was a private vehicle and not a commercial vehicle. The appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. August 31, 2009 (PC). (Dev Darshan Sud), J.