IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA FAO No. 337/2003 Date of Decision: 19th December, 2008. _____________________________________________ National Insurance Company Ltd. …Appellant. Versus: Hiun Dassi & others. …Respondents ______________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting?1 No For the appellant : Ms. Devyani Sharma, Advocate. For Respondents 1 to 4: Mr. Dibender Ghosh, Advocate. For Respondents 5&6 : Mr. B. K. Malhotra, Advocate. SANJAY KAROL, J.(Oral) . It is a common case of the parties that the issue raised by the appellant, insurer M/s. National Insurance Company Limited 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 27th April, 2006 passed the following orders: “One of the points involved in this case is, “Whether a license permitting the holder to drive a light motor vehicle entitles him to drive a transport vehicle or not”? This question has been referred to a larger Bench in FAO No.307 of 1998. Therefore, it is ordered that these appeals may be listed for hearing, along 2 with FAO No.17 of 2003 titled as NIC vs. Laxmi Chand, after the larger Bench decides the question(s) in 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 insurer is aggrieved against the impugned award dated 21st August, 2002 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kinnaur Division at Rampur Bushahr, H.P. in M.A.C. Case No. 64 of 2001, titled as Hiun Dassi & Ors. vs. Gian Chand & others. In terms of the impugned award, a sum of Rs.3,36,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum has been awarded in favour of the claimants. Shri Findoo Ram (47 years) was travelling in vehicle (Jeep) No. HP-01-8857 on 25.6.2001 which met with a road accident near Matiana, Distt. Shimla, H.P. The vehicle in question was being driven by Shri Dhameshwar who was also the owner of the vehicle. The vehicle was insured with the insurer. In the said accident, Shri Findoo Ram sustained injuries and succumbed to the same. The legal heirs being the mother, widow and sons filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), claiming compensation. The Tribunal found the driver to have driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, which was the cause of the accident in which the deceased died. The vehicle was found to have been insured and in the absence 3 of any proven breach of any terms and conditions of the policy, the insurer was held to have indemnified the insured and pay the compensation to the claimants. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) was neither sought for nor granted by the Tribunal, therefore, the scope of challenge in the present appeal is quite narrow. Ms. Devyani Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the compensation awarded is much on the higher side. It is a matter of record that permission was neither sought for nor granted by the court permitting the insurer to take defence other than the statutory defence permissible to the insurer. Therefore, the contention needs to be rejected. The driving licence was proved and exhibited by Shri Vinod Kumar in MAC case No.69 of 2001, which also arose out of the same accident. While deciding FAO (MVA) No.336/2003 arising out of the said petition, this Court considered the said statement and observed as under:- “Shri Dhameshwar, driver who also died in the same accident, was possessing a license (Ext.R-1) is not in dispute. The same in any case stands proved on record by Shri Vinod Kumar (RW-1), clerk from the office of Registering and Licensing Authority, Karsog. In terms of the said license he was authorized to drive 4 light motor vehicle. Admittedly, the vehicle in question was a transport vehicle. Further RW-1 has proved that the licence was endorsed for driving heavy goods vehicle w.e.f. 13.9.1999. The light motor vehicle licence initially issued on 10.1.1996 stood subsequently renewed upto 28.1.2002. He has further admitted that after 1999, licences for “heavy motor vehicles” are issued and no licence to drive the “heavy goods vehicle” is being issued thereafter. He has admitted that the licence to drive the heavy motor vehicle is valid for driving the light motor vehicle.” Statement of Shri Vinod Kumar was proved and exhibited as Ext.RXX in the present case also. 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 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. 5 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 rightly held so. The claimants have not filed any appeal. The deceased was just 47 years of age at the time of accident. The age of the claimants was 45, 75, 24 & 18 respectively. The compensation awarded is also not excessive. Therefore, in my view, interest @ 12% per annum awarded by the Tribunal is just, fair and reasonable. I see no reason to interfere with the award, the appeal is accordingly dismissed. (Sanjay Karol), December 19, 2008 Judge. (rana)