FAO NO.385 OF 1996 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO NO.385 OF 1996 DECIDED ON 29.6.2010. New India Assurance Co. -----Appellant Vs. Smt. Sumitra and others -------Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present:- Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Sangita Rai, Advocate for Mr. Sandeep Khunger, Advocate for the respondents. *** K. Kannan, J (Oral) 1. The challenge in the appeal against liability cast on the Insurance Company is that the driver of the vehicle had only heavy passenger vehicle licence and did not have a heavy goods vehicle licence, when the vehicle involved was a goods vehicle. The liability of the Insurance company cannot be diluted without a finding that it was on account of the particular type of licence that he did not have the accident had taken place. It was also held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh 2004(3) SCC 297 that the definition of “ duly licensed” occurs under Section 149(2) (a)(ii), and the definition of “effective license” used under Section 3 cannot be imported into Section 149(2) of the Act with reference to the expression “duly licensed”. This dichotomy was brought to see the nature of evidence that has to be adduced FAO NO.385 OF 1996 2 in order that the Insurance Company could effectively contend that its liability shall not attracted. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court squarely governs the case and by a mere fact that the driver had a HPV licence, different from HGV, a category of licence than what he was driving, without proving that it was the lack of such licence that caused the accident, the insurance company cannot be absolved of its liability. 2. Decision of the Tribunal is unexceptional and therefore, in such circumstances, appeal is without any merits and is hereby dismissed . 29.06.2010 ( K.KANNAN ) mamta JUDGE