IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA: FAO.No.264/2002 Date of Decision: 19th November ,2008. National Insurance Company Ltd. …Appellant. Versus: Baldeep Singh and others. …Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting?1 . For the appellant: Mr.Deepak Bhasin, Advocate. For Respondent-1. Ms.Archana Dutt, Advocate. For Respondent-2&3. Ms. Jyotsna Rewal, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, J(Oral) . It is a common case of the parties that the issue raised by the appellant, insurer National Insurance Company 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 23rd November, 2005 passed the following orders: “ The question which arises in this appeal is, whether the license permitting the driver to drive a Light Motor Vehicle also entitles him to drive Light Transport Vehicle. This question has already 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 been referred to a Larger Bench in FAO No. 307/1998. Therefore, list this case for hearing after the decision of the aforesaid question by the Larger Bench.” 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 19th January, 2002 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-1, Sirmour District at Nahan, H.P. in M.A.C. No. 2-MAC/2 of 2001, titled as Baldeep Singh vs. Joginder and others. In terms of the impugned award, a sum of Rs.80,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum has been awarded in favour of the claimant. The Tribunal held the driver-Sh.Joginder-respondent No.2 herein to be negligent in driving a three-wheeler bearing registration No. H.P. 50-0215 owned by Sh.Jasbir Singh-respondent No.3 herein since the vehicle was insured by the appellant and the driver was held to have possessed an effective and valid driving license, therefore, the insurer was held to have indemnify the insured and as such asked to pay the compensation awarded. 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. Deepak Bhasin 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 Sh.Joginder Singh was possessing license (Ext.R-1) is not in dispute. In terms of the said license he was authorized to drive light motor vehicle. Admittedly, the vehicle in question, three-wheeler was a light transport 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 4 holder of the license to drive a light motor vehicle also entitled him to drive a transport vehicle. Even 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. (Sanjay Karol), November 19, 2008(R) Judge.