IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA: FAO No. 555/2003 Date of Decision: November 21, 2008. United India Insurance Company Ltd. …Appellant. Versus: Manender and others. …Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting?1 No For the appellant: Mr. Anand Sharma, Advocate with Mr. Jagannath Sharma, Advocate. For respondent No.1. Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate. For respondents 2&3. Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, J.(Oral) . It is a common case of the parties that the issue raised by the appellant, insurer M/s United India 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 30th March, 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 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ordered that this appeal may be listed for hearing 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 26.8.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hamirpur, H. P. in M.A.C. Petition No. 15 of 2001, titled as Manender vs. Toofan Chand & others. In terms of the impugned award, a sum of Rs.40,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum was awarded in favour of the claimant Shri Manender. The claimant received injuries in an accident which took place on 31.12.1999 with vehicle (Tata Sumo No.HP-02-3777). The Tribunal held that the driver Shri Sanjeev Kumar, respondent No.3 herein was negligent in driving the vehicle, which was owned by Shri Toofan Chand, respondent No.2 herein. Since the vehicle was insured by the Insurer, the appellant herein and the driver was held to have possessed with an effective and valid driving license (Ext.R-2) and there being no breach of the terms of the policy, therefore, the liability to pay the compensation was fastened upon the insurer. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3 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. Mr. Anand Sharma, has vehemently argued that the compensation awarded is much on the higher side. It is a matter on record that no permission was either 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. That the driver Shri Sanjeev Kumar was holding an effective and valid driving licence (Ext.R-2) to drive a light motor vehicle is not disputed. The same in any case stands proved on record by Shri Rup Chand (RW-1). Admittedly, the vehicle in question was a light motor vehicle. 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 and 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 4 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. 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. I see no reason to interfere with the award, the appeal is accordingly dismissed, so also the pending application. (Sanjay Karol), November 21, 2008. Judge. (rana)