IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2286 of 1996 Date of decision:25.08.2010 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Sukhwinder Kaur and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ----- Present: Mr. Jagtar Kureel, Advocate, for Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant. None for the respondents. ----- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? Yes. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? Yes. ----- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The issue involved, in this case, is that the driver had a driving licence for a heavy goods vehicle but he was driving a heavy passenger vehicle. The learned counsel for the insurer would contend that the accident relates to a period before an amendment was brought to Section 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 substituting the expression 'transport vehicle' to four classes namely, (e) medium goods vehicle; (f) medium passenger motor vehicle; (g) heavy goods vehicle; and (h) heavy passenger motor vehicle. The attempt of the insurer is, therefore, to point out that for an accident that took place prior to the amendment Act of 54 of 1994, which was with effect from 14.11.1994, if the driver did not have a particular category of licence, he could not be termed to FAO No.2286 of 1996 - 2 - be duly licensed. The learned counsel would also rely on this distinction as affording to the insurer a scope for claim for right of recovery against the insured by referring to the decision of Karnataka High Court in United India Insurance Company Versus Dayalaxmi and another- 1998 ACJ 715. The distinction though it does exist, it cannot make a difference, is the view held by this Court (Punjab & Haryana High Court) in United India Insurance Company Versus Kamal @ Kamla Devi- 1999(2) PLR 311. This Court has held that there is nothing which may indicate that a person, who has a licence to drive a heavy motor vehicle is not competent to drive a bus. The Court said that there was really no distinction between heavy motor vehicle and a heavy passenger motor vehicle referred to under Section 10(2) of the pre-amendment provision. The decision of this Court is a complete answer to the contention raised by the insurer. The Insurance Company shall be liable and the award is sustained. The appeal is dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 25.08.2010 sanjeev