FAO No.473 of 2009(O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... FAO No.473 of 2009(O&M) Decided on : January 15, 2010 Raj Kumar ... Appellant VERSUS Satish Kumar and another ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Aftab Singh Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Vinod Gupta, Advocate for the respondent – Insurance Company. A.N.JINDAL, J.- This is driver/owner's (herein referred as `the appellant') appeal against the order dated 16.5.2008 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar, awarding compensation of Rs.1,29,834/- along with interest @ 9% per annum in favour of the claimant- respondent No.1 (herein referred as `the claimant') for the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicle accident, which took place on 15.3.2003. However, the Tribunal held that since the appellant was holding a licence for light motor vehicle, therefore, he could not drive a three-wheeler. Ultimately, the Tribunal ordered that the payment of compensation would be made by the Insurance Company at the first instance, however, the Company would have FAO No.473 of 2009(O&M) [ 2 ] the right to recover the same from the appellant. The only question for determination in the case is that the appellant, who was holding a valid driving licence for `Light Motor Vehicle' could drive a three-wheeler. Admittedly, the appellant was holding a valid driving licence for driving a Light Motor Vehicle and there is nothing on record that the three-wheeler, which he was driving at the relevant time, was a Transport Vehicle. Even otherwise, the licence (Ex.R1 on the record) revealed that he was authorised to drive motor cycle, scooter and Light Motor Vehicle. Similar was the issue dealt with by the Full Bench of this Court in case National Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Parveen Kumar and others, 2005(1) PLR 230, wherein, it was observed as under:- “The issue being no more res-integra, needs no further elaboration. We may, however, hasten to add that the Insurance Company cannot be absolved of its liability to pay the compensation by simply pleading that the licence granted to the driver being for one class or description of vehicle but the vehicle involved in the accident was of the different class of description, unless it is proved that the cause of accident was the licence granted to the driver being for one class or description of vehicle but the vehicle involved in the accident was of different class or description. The observations made by the Supreme Court presuppose that if the driver was driving a vehicle of which he might not be holding licence as such, but was holding a driving licence of a different description of FAO No.473 of 2009(O&M) [ 3 ] vehicle, and the driving method of both the vehicles, for which licence was obtained and the one which was being driven, was the same and when even the mechanism of the vehicle is also same, the defence projected by the Insurance Company with regard to the driver not possessing requisite type of licence could be of no avail to it. We, thus, overrule the view taken by the Division Bench in National Insurance Company Ltd.(supra) and hold that if on facts, it is found that accident was caused solely because of some other unforeseen or intervening causes like mechanical failures and similar other causes having no nexus with driver not possessing requisite type of licence, the insurer will not be allowed to avoid its liability merely for technical breach of conditions concerning driving licence, the defence projected by the Insurance Company in the context of Section 149(2)(a)(ii) and proviso appended to sub-sections (4) and (5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can succeed only if it is proved that the accident had taken place only because the driver was not possessing requisite type of licence. In the case in hand, the appellant was holding a valid driving licence for driving `Motor Cycle, Scooter and Light Motor Vehicles'. It would be essential to mention here that the mechanism of Three-wheeler is not different than the Light Motor Vehicles/ Scooter and, thus, no separate technique was required to be learnt by the appellant to drive such a vehicle. FAO No.473 of 2009(O&M) [ 4 ] Consequently, the appellant cannot be said to be not having a valid driving licence to drive the three-wheeler, which is not a separate category of vehicles, than those for which he has been issued a driving licence. Thus, it is held that the appellant was having a valid driving licence to drive a three-wheeler. Resultantly, the appeal is accepted and the impugned award is modified only to the extent that the Insurance Company would have no right to recover the compensation from the appellant. No order as to costs. January 15, 2010 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE