FAO No. 5087 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH FAO No. 5087 of 2010 Date of decision August 30, 2010 National Insurance Company Ltd. ....... Appellant Versus Kulwinder Kaur and others ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ***** Present:- Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. ****** K. Kannan, J (oral) 1. The appeal is by the Insurance Company against the award of the Tribunal rejecting the plea taken by the insurer that the driver was not duly licensed. The vehicle involved in the accident was a heavy transport vehicle. The contention of the Insurance Company was that the driver did not have a heavy passenger vehicle endorsement. In my view, there is no distinction between a heavy transport vehicle and heavy passenger vehicle. Form IV of the Central Motor Vehicles Rule which replicates what is contained in Section 10 that it should be a transport vehicle, Section 3 again contains a reference only to a transport vehicle and does not make any such classification as urged by the counsel. Therefore, if a person has a license that carries transport vehicle endorsement, it ought to include within its definition, every category of transport vehicle. It makes no difference that it is a license which carries an endorsement, merely to drive a heavy transport vehicle and does not specifically state that it is for heavy passenger vehicle. As already stated, there is no such classification in the manner contended by the Insurance FAO No. 5087 of 2010 2 Company. The liability cast on the insurer is under the circumstances justified and the appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 30, 2010 archana