IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA: FAO.No.445/2002 Date of Decision: 20th November ,2008. Baldev Raj and another. …Appellant. Versus: Smt.Sukaram Mankotia and others. …Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting?1 . For the appellant: Mr.Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate. For Respondent-1&2. Mr.N.K.Thakur, Advocate. For Respondent-3. Mr.G.D.Sharma, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, J(Oral) . It is a common case of the parties that the issue raised by the appellant, owner Sh.Baldev Raj and another is squarely covered by a decision rendered by a Full Bench of this Court in FAO.No. 307 of 1998, titled as Prem Singh vs. Baldassi, dated 30th September, 2008. This court on 2nd December, 2005 passed the following orders: “ The question which arises in this appeal is “Whether the driver holding a license to drive a light motor vehicle also entitles him to drive a transport vehicle, unladen weight of which is 7500 kg.” This point has been referred to a larger 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Bench in FAO No.304 of 1998. Therefore, list this appeal after the decision of FAO.No. 307 of 1998. The decision delivered by the Full Bench of this Court in FAO.No.307 of 1998 decided on 30th September, 2008 has been placed on record by the Registry. The owner is aggrieved against the impugned award dated 29th June, 2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-III, Kangra at Dharamsala, H.P. in M.A.C. Petition No. 100-N/99 titled as Smt. Sukarma Mankotia and another Vs. Baldev Raj and others, for the reason that even though the vehicle was insured the Tribunal erred in holding that the insurer was not liable to indemnify the insured and pay the awarded compensation. The trial court framed the following issues: 1. Whether death of Sukhdev was on account of rash/negligent driving of the vehicle by respondent No.2 ?. …OPP. 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation, the petitioners are entitled to and from whim?. …OPP. 3. Whether the respondent No.2 was not having a valid and effective driving license?. …OPR. 4. Relief. In terms of the impugned award, a sum of Rs.4,68,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum has been awarded in favour of the claimant, wife and 3 daughter of deceased Sh. Sukhdev Mankotia who died in a road accident with vehicle (Jeep) No. PAO-5050 on 20th February, 1999. The Tribunal held the driver-Sh.Pammu- appellant No.2 herein to be negligent in driving the said vehicle. The liability to pay the awarded compensation was fastened upon its owner Sh. Baldev Raj-appellant No.1 herein for the reason that the driver was not possessed with an effective and valid driving license. The driver was possessing driving license (Ext.RW-1/A) authorizing him to drive “Light Motor Vehicle” whereas the vehicle in question according to the registration certificate Ext.RW-1/B was light motor vehicle, which allegedly could not have been driven by the driver, therefore even though the vehicle was fully insured in terms of insurance policy (Ext.RX), the insurer was held not liable to indemnify the insured. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Mr. Rakesh Jaswal has vehemently argued that the driver was holding an effective and valid driving licence and as such he was authorized to drive “Light Transport Vehicle” and the Tribunal erred in holding that the driver was not possessing an effective and a valid driving license. That Sh.Pammu was possessing driving license (Ext.RW-1/A) is not in dispute. In terms of the said license he 4 was authorized to drive light motor vehicle. Admittedly, the vehicle in question was a “Light Transport Vehicle”. A Full Bench of this Court while deciding FAO No 307 of 1998 on 30th September, 2008 took into account the decision of the apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Annappa Irappa Nesaria alias Nesaragi and others, (2008) 3 SCC 464 wherein it has been and held that a person possessing a valid driving license to drive a light motor vehicle would be authorized to drive a “light goods vehicle” which includes a “light passenger carriage vehicle” and “light goods carriage vehicle”. In effect, the reference was answered by holding that the driving license permitting the holder of the license to drive a light motor vehicle also entitled him to drive a transport vehicle. Even though it is not so specified in the judgment but the court was dealing with the statute as it stood prior to its amendment w.e.f. 28th March, 2001. Therefore, in my view, the driver was entitled to drive the vehicle in question and it cannot be said that he was not possessing an effective and valid driving license to drive the vehicle at the time of the accident. The Tribunal has erred in not holding so. Consequently, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No.3 are set aside and the appeal is allowed. The vehicle being fully insured, the insurer is liable 5 to indemnify the insured and as such pay compensation to the claimant. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned award is modified to the aforesaid extent. It shall be open for the appellant to move an appropriate application for release of the amount deposited. (Sanjay Karol), November 19, 2008(R) Judge.