IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1353 of 1994 Date of decision:10.09.2010 National Insurance Company ....Appellant versus Smt. Sudesh Gupta and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Tejinderpal Singh,Advocate, for the appellant. None for the respondents. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The claim by the Insurance Company is that the driver had only a heavy motor vehicle licence but he was driving a bus which was a heavy public service vehicle. According to him, there must have been a specific licence to drive heavy public service vehicle. The form of licence provided under Section 10 before the amendment which was made by Act 54 of 1994 does not contain a classification such as heavy motor vehicle. However, that seems to be a licence which had been issued for the driver. It was evidently a mistake and it ought to be read only as a licence for heavy passengers public service vehicle. Even otherwise if there is any mistake which the licensing authority makes by FAO No.1353 of 1994 - 2 - giving a form of licence which does not correspond to what the Act provides, the owner or driver cannot be put to any disadvantage. The insurer shall undertake the liability and the award fastening such liability on the insurer is justified. 2. The appeal by the Insurance Company is dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 10.09.2010 sanjeev