FAO NO.2114 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO NO.2114 of 2010 Date of decision:19.10.2011 Bajaj Alianz General Insurance Company Ltd ...Appellant Versus Smt.Sangeeta and others. ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN\ Present: Mr.Subhash Goyal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate, for the respondents. -.- JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (Oral) The present appeal is directed against the award dated 20.1.2010 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Yamunanagar, whereby the claim petition filed by the claimants was accepted and the claimants were awarded compensation to the tune of `4,09,500/- in equal shares holding driver-cum-owner (since deceased) and Insurance Company, appellant herein, jointly and severally to pay compensation. Brief facts of the present case are that on 10.9.2008 Ram Chander met with an accident when he was travelling as a pillion rider on the motorcycle bearing registration No.HR02Q-1056 (for short `the offending vehicle), which was being driven by Ram Singh. As a result of FAO NO.2114 of 2010 2 the accident, Ram Singh also sustained injuries and died lateron. In the claim petition, the claimants/respondents took the stand that the alleged accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of Ram Singh. The learned Tribunal after considering the evidence on record and hearing both the parties allowed, the claim petition and held the respondents i.e. driver and Insurance company liable to pay the compensation amount jointly and severally. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that motorcycle is altogether a different class of vehicle. Though the driver-respondent No.1 (since deceased) held licence for LTV/HTV but in both the licences, there is no endorsement that he was authorised to drive a motorcycle/scooter. He further contends that the mechanism being entirely different, either there has to be a separate licence or a specific endorsement in the licence for driving the particular vehicle, which is missing in the instant case. Lastly, he submits that the impugned award stands indemnified by the appellant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has prayed for maintaining the impugned award and submits that as the driver was having LTV/HTV licences; therefore, no specific endorsement in the licence is required to drive the motorcycle or the scooter. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. The sole question involved in the present appeal is that whether the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation or not? The Insurance Company-appellant has been fastened with the liability on the ground that the mechanism of motorcycle/scooter and the LTV is the same. However, the learned Tribunal has not referred to any FAO NO.2114 of 2010 3 document, which substantiates the said finding. Moreover, in view of the specific provision in the Motor Vehicles Act, a specific endorsement has to be there in the licence for the vehicle is being driven. Though, in the instant case, the factum of holding the LTV and HTV licences is not disputed but motorcycle is a different class of vehicle and in the absence of any endorsement to drive the motorcycle or scooter, it cannot be said that the driver was holding a valid driving licence. Hon'ble the Supreme Court while dealing with the same situation in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Zaharuinisha & others, 2008 (2) RCR (Civil) 913 observed that if a person has been given a licence for a particular type of vehicle as specified therein, he cannot be said to have no licence for driving another type of vehicle which is of the same category but of different type. In the fact situation, it is established that driver of the offending vehicle was not authorized to drive the same. The motorcyclist i.e. Driver-cum-owner Ram Singh deceased was possessing driving licence for driving LTV/HTV but he was driving a totally different class of vehicle which act of his, is in violation of Section 10(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. In the light of above authority, the appellant Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants because the driver-cum-owner Ram Singh had no valid and effective driving licence to drive the motorcycle on the date of the accident. As the vehicle in question was insured with the appellant, the appellant Insurance Company has to satisfy the award and shall have the right to recover the amount so deposited by it alongwith interest from the driver-cum-owner i.e. Ram Singh (since deceased). In view of the above discussion, the present appeal is accepted and the appellant is given recovery rights to recover the amount paid to the FAO NO.2114 of 2010 4 claimants from the legal heirs of driver i.e. respondents in the present appeal. 19.10.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) Mks JUDGE