IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. FAO NO.1216/2009 Date of Decision:1.4.2009. Mandeep ..........Appellant Versus National Insurance Co.Ltd. And others ..........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present: Mr.Shailender Mohan,Advocate for the appellant-Owner. JASWANT SINGH,J(Oral). Appellant, being the owner of pick up vehicle (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle) bearing registration No.HR 39-A/3294 (a transport vehicle) has preferred the instant appeal against the award dated 26.5.2008 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar (hereinafter referred to as the learned Tribunal) whereby the claim petition filed by widow, minor son and parents of deceased Rajpal, who died in a motor vehicular accident, involving the aforesaid offending vehicle, that took place on 3.10.2006 at about 7 p.m., was partly allowed and the claimants were awarded a total compensation of Rs.4,08,200/-. Since Krishan son of Ram Gopal, driver of the offending vehicle was proved to be not holding a valid driving licence to drive a transport vehicle, the liability to pay the compensation amount was fastened upon the Insurance Company with rights to recover the same from the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. Hence the present appeal. The factum of accident resulting into the death of deceased Rajpal, dependency assessed and multiplier applied are not challenged by the learned counsel for the appellant. The solitary argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that on the date of accident the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a valid driving licence FAO NO.1216/2009 2 to drive scooter, motorcycle, car and jeep, which are Light Motor Vehicles, and as such learned Tribunal has wrongly granted the recovery rights to the respondent-Insurance Company. Reliance has been placed upon a Full Bench judgement of this Court rendered in National Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Parveen Kumar and others, The Punjab Law Reporter, (2003-1)230. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the impugned award, I find no force in the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel. The accident in this case had taken place on 3.10.2006. The appellant-owner and driver did not lead any evidence to show that on the fateful day the driver was holding a valid driving licence to drive the offending vehicle, i.e. a transport vehicle. On the contrary, the insurer-National Insurance Co.Ltd. in order to prove that the driver was not authorised to drive the offending vehicle on 3.10.2006, examined RW1 Surender Singh, Registration Clerk, RTA Office, Hisar and RW2 Raghbir Singh, Licensing Clerk from the office of SDM Hansi, besides exhibiting copy of the insurance policy (Ex.R8), registration certificate of the offending vehicle(Ex.R4), driving licence (Ex.R5) etc. Surender Singh, Registration Clerk, RTA Office, Hisar while appearing as RW1 categorically stated that in the Registration Certificate (Ex.R4) the offending vehicle was registered as transport vehicle. RW2 Raghbir Singh,Clerk SDM Office, Hansi, on the basis of summoned record deposed that Krishan Kumar-driver of the offending vehicle was holding driving licence no.21266, issued on 4.4.1996 which was valid upto 3.4.2021 and as per that driving licence he was authorised to drive scooter, motor cycle, car and jeep. He further deposed that said Krishan Kumar was authorised to drive the Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) only w.e.f. 9.10.2006 to 8.10.2011. From the testimony of aforesaid two witnesses, and Registration Certificate of offending vehicle (Ex.R4) and Driving Licence (Exh.R5) it is abundantly clear that the FAO NO.1216/2009 3 offending vehicle was a “transport vehicle” and even if it is considered to be a Light Motor Vehicle, as argued by the learned counsel for the appellant, on the date of accident, Krishan Kumar-driver of the offending vehicle was not authorised to drive LMV. He has been granted licence to drive the LMV only w.e.f. 9.10.2006 to 8.10.2011, i.e. after the date of accident, meaning thereby that the learned Tribunal rightly found that on the date of accident the driver was not authorised to drive the offending vehicle. No fault can be found with this finding of fact recorded by the learned Tribunal. In National Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Kusum Rai and others 2006 ACJ 1336, wherein the driver of the offending commercial vehicle ( a Jeep) was holding a LMV licence, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the driver was required to hold an appropriate licence and as he did not possess a licence to drive a “commercial vehicle”, the Insurer was absolved from liability. In New India Assurance Co.Ltd. v. Prabhu Lal, 2008(1) SCC 696, it was held by their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that a person holding a driving licence to ply light motor vehicle cannot ply a transport vehicle, and if he does so the insurer shall be absolved of its liability. Relevant para 28 of the said judgement reads as under:- “28. The argument of the Insurance Company is that at the time of accident, Ram Narain had no valid and effective licence to drive Tata 709. Indisputably, Ram Narain was having a licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company, referring to various provisions of the Act submitted that if a person is having licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle, he cannot drive a transport vehicle unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do (Section 3). Clauses (14), (21), (28) and (47) of Section 2 make it clear that if a vehicle is Light Motor Vehicle, but falls under the category of Transport Vehicle, the driving FAO NO.1216/2009 4 licence has to be duly endorsed under Section 3 of the Act. If it is not done, a person holding driving licence to ply Light Motor Vehicle cannot ply transport vehicle. It is not in dispute that in the instant case, Ram Narain was having licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle. The licence was not endorsed as required and hence, the could not have driven Tata 709 in absence of requisite endorsement and Insurance Company could not be held liable. (emphasis supplied). Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to cite any case law to the contrary. The judgement relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant has no application to the facts of the present case. No other point has been raised. For the reasons stated above,finding no merit in this appeal the same is hereby dismissed in limine. No costs. 1.4.2009. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge