IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2 of 2001 Date of decision:05.08.2010 The New India Assurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Om Parkash and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Suman Jain, Advocate, for the appellant. None for the respondents. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The point urged in appeal by the insurer is that the driver had only a licence to drive a scooter, motorcycle, car and jeep and did not have a licence to drive a tractor. A Clerk from the licensing authority was also examined to prove the nature of endorsement. In my view, it ought not to make a difference for a tractor is defined under Section 2 (44) of the Motor Vehicles Act refers to it as a light motor vehicle and light motor vehicle is defined under Section 2(14) includes a tractor. There is no particular category of a licence to drive a tractor under Section 10 of the MV Act. 2. The licence which the driver had, is sufficient to drive the particular vehicle that he was driving and the insurer shall therefore be FAO No.2 of 2001 - 2 - liable for the claim arising out of such an accident. 3. The award of the Tribunal is justified and the appeal is dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 05.08.2010 sanjeev