FAO No.2674 of 2001 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. FAO No.2674 of 2001 DATE OF DECISION: January 24, 2011 RAM KARAN AND ANOTHER ...APPELLANTS VERSUS ROSHNI DEVI AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS PRESENT: MS. RAHISH PAHWA, ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANTS. MR. MANISHA SETIA, ADVOCATE FOR MR. ASHIT MALIK, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENTS-CLAIMANTS. MR. SUMEET GOEL, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT-INSURANCE COMPANY. 2. FAO No.2591 of 2001 SMT. ROSHNI DEVI AND OTHERS ...APPELLANTS VERSUS RAM KARAN AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN. 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? No ---- PRESENT: MR. MANISHA SETIA, ADVOCATE FOR MR. ASHIT MALIK, ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANTS. NONE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2. MR. SUMEET GOEL, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT-INSURANCE COMPANY. K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) 1. FAO No.2574 of 2001 and FAO No.2591 of 2001 are FAO No.2674 of 2001 -2- connected arising out of the same accident. The appeal by the insured is on the issue of liability cast on the owner for providing for a right of indemnity in a case where the Tribunal found that that the driver was not duly licenced. The owner produced a copy of the driving licence to show that the endorsement was also to drive the tractor, but this endorsement was contentious, for, the insurer had produced the original register from the licencing authority and also produced the evidence of Clerk from the office to say that in the original records maintained by them, the entry of authority to drive a tractor had not been mentioned. In my view, this discrepancy has no meaning, since there is no separate requirement to take special permission to driver a tractor. The tractor is a Light Motor Vehicle and From No.4 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules that provides for a form of application for licence and Form No.6 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules which provides for a form of licence does not stipulate a tractor as a distinct category. These two forms must be again seen in the context of Section 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act itself which deals with the categories of vehicles for which the driving licence are necessary. This Section also does not spell out anywhere that a tractor is to be taken as a distinct category. If the tractor is defined within the category of Light Motor Vehicle, I would take the absence of specific category under Section 10 as governing the issue that it is not necessary that licence contained a specific entry for a licence to drive a tractor. 2. It is pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the insurer that there was a trailer attached and therefore, it was a goods carriage. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would contend that there was no transport of goods at that time and mere attachment of a trailer FAO No.2674 of 2001 -3- cannot make a difference to be characterized as a goods carriage. The defence of the insurance company has not been that the vehicle was a goods carriage. It was taking a plea that the driving licence must have been specifically for a tractor which contention I have rejected already. The appellants ought to have been, therefore, provided fully with a right of recovery. 3. The appeal by the owner and the driver is, therefore, allowed and the liability of answering the claim of compensation shall be only on the insurance company. 4. FAO No.2591 of 2001 is for enhancement of compensation for death of a boy aged 20 years. He was said to be a labourer and the Tribunal took the income to be `1800/-. I would take the contribution to the family at `900/-and adopt a multiplier of 14 as suitable to the age of parents. The extent of loss of dependency will be `1,51,200/-. The Tribunal has provided for additional amount of `10,000/- towards transportation, funeral expenses, etc. for the parents for the death of their son. The same shall be retained. The total amount of compensation shall be `1,61,200/-. The Tribunal has already awarded `1,34,800/- and the amount over what has already been awarded by the Tribunal shall bear interest @ 6% from the date of petition till the date of payment. The amount shall be distributed equally between the parents. The liability shall be again on the insurance company. 5. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. January 24, 2011 (K.KANNAN) Gulati JUDGE