IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.No.1579 of 2008(O&M) Date of Decision 17.11.2009 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company ...... Appellant VERSUS Jeeto Devi and others ...... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Subhash Goyal, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.NonishKumar, Advocate, for Mr.Sushil Bhardwaj, Advocate, for respondent No.6. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL): This appeal, preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company (herein referred as 'the appellant') is directed against the award dated 02.01.2008, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal, awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.3,27,000/- alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum in favour of respondents No.1 to 5-claimants (herein referred as 'the claimants') on account of the death of Ranbir Singh, in a motor vehicular accident. The grievance of the appellant is that the driver-respondent No.6 was not holding any driving licence for driving the motorcycle. He may be having driving licence for driving the light motor vehicle. This argument appears to be untenable. Admittedly, the driver was holding a valid licence for driving light motor vehicles, which included motor cycle. It has been observed by this High Court in the judgment delivered in case New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Prem Lata and others 2001 ACJ 111 that though the offending vehicle was scooter and the scooterist F.A.O.No.1579 of 2008(O&M) -2- had no driving licence to drive the motor cycle or scooter but he was having a driving licence for drive light motor vehicle, as such, the scooterist could not be said to have contravened the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It was also observed in case National Insurance Company Limited vs. Kusum Rai and others 2006 ACJ 1336 that the driver had licence to drive light motor vehicle but he was driving a jeep which was being plied as a taxi i.e. a commercial vehicle. In that case, even the driver cannot be said to have contravened the terms and conditions of the policy. Since the driver was holding a valid driving licence for driving a light motor vehicle and the mechanism of the motorcycle was not different than that of any light motor vehicle. As such, it cannot be said that he had contravened any terms and conditions of the insurance policy. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 17.11.2009 mamta-II