IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO (MVA) No. 474 of 2005. Decided on September 22, 2010 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. …Appellant. Versus Chandu Devi & others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the appellants Sh. Sanjeev Sood, Advocate, vice Mr. K.D.Sood, Advocate. For respondents 1 to 5 Sh. Anil Tanwar, Advocate. For respondent No. 6 Mr. B.S.Chauhan, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge (Oral) This appeal, by the Insurance Company, is directed against the award dated 30.8.2005, of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, by which, while awarding compensation for the death of a person, in a motor vehicle accident, liability to pay compensation money, has been fastened upon it. 2. Petition, for grant of compensation, for the death of one Bhup Ram, was filed by respondent Chandu Devi and Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - others (hereinafter referred to as claimants), alleging that on 26.2.2000, when said Bhup Ram was standing at a place called Banooti Chowk, within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Boileauganj, Shimla, truck No. HP-07-2305, being driven by respondent Deep Ram, appeared. It was being driven in a rash or negligent manner. It hit the deceased, as a result of which, he died. Deceased was stated to be 42 years old and his monthly income was alleged to be Rs.5,000/-. Petition was contested, both by the insured, that is the owner of the vehicle, and the present appellant, i.e. Insurance Company. Insurance Company took the plea that the driver of the vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence at the time, when the accident took place. 3. Learned Tribunal, after trial, held that the cause of accident, was rash and negligent driving of the truck. It assessed the loss of dependency, and awarded a sum of Rs.6,87,520/- as compensation, in favour of the claimants. Appellant’s plea, that the driver did not possess a valid and effective driving licence and hence, it was not liable to pay compensation, did not find favour with the Tribunal. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence. 5. Copy of the licence, possessed by the driver of the vehicle, is Ex.RW-1/A. Licence was issued by Shimla Licensing Authority, in the year 1995. Endorsement for - 3 - heavy transport vehicle was made by Suni Licensing Authority. Licence was renewed by Shimla Licensing Authority, from 13.1.2000 to 12.1.2003. These facts are not in dispute. Renewal endorsement from 13.1.2000 to 12.1.2003, was not for heavy transport vehicle. Printed endorsement of renewal reads as follows: “Space for renewal of driving licence. The licence to drive motor vehicles other than transport vehicle is here (sic) renewed.” Since the original licence authorized the driver to drive light motor vehicle, presumption is that the renewal was also for light motor vehicle, even though the printed endorsement, as reproduced hereinabove, indicates that it was to authorize the holder of the licence to drive motor vehicles, other than transport vehicles. 6. Light motor vehicle has been defined in Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to mean a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road-roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed 7,500 kilograms. The gross weight of the vehicle, in question, is indicated in the Insurance Policy Ex.RW-1/B. The same is 2000 to 3000 kgs. That means, the vehicle, in question, fell within the definition of light motor vehicle. - 4 - 7. Hon’ble Supreme Court, in National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Annappa Irappa Nesaria alias Nesaragi and others, (2008) 3 SCC 464, has held that a person authorized to drive a light motor vehicle could have driven a light transport vehicle also, before the changes were effected in the Rules and the form of application for grant of license, vide Notification, dated 28.3.2001, because it was by virtue of those changes that an indication was given that for driving a transport vehicle of any kind, application for driving a transport vehicle, should be made. 8. In the present case, accident had taken place before the aforesaid changes were brought about, in the form of application for licence. That means, the driver possessed a valid and effective driving licence to drive a transport vehicle, gross weight of which, did not exceed 7,500 kgs. and in the present case, the gross weight, as per Policy of the appellant itself, was between 2000 and 3000 kgs. 9. In view of the above said position, appeal is dismissed. September 22, 2010 (PC). (Surjit Singh) Judge.