IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA: FAO.No.407/2002 Date of Decision: 20th November ,2008. M/s Everest casting Ltd. …Appellant. Versus: Yog Raj and others. …Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting?1 . For the appellant: Mr.Inderjit Singh Narwal and Mr.M.S.Thakur, Advocates. For Respondent-2. Mr.G.D.Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent-1. Mr.Romesh Verma, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, J(Oral) . It is a common case of the parties that the issue raised by the appellant, owner M/s Everest Casting Ltd. 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 1st December, 2005 passed the following orders: “The question which arises in this appeal is “Whether the driver holding a license to drive a light motor vehicle also entitles him to drive a 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 transport vehicle, unladen weight of which is 7500 kg.” This point has been referred to a larger Bench in FAO No.304 of 1998. Therefore, list this appeal after the decision of FAO.No. 307 of 1998.” 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 owner is aggrieved against the impugned award dated 25th May, 2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Solan, H.P. in M.A.C. Petition No. 14-NL/2 of 2000 titled as Yog Raj Vs. Harnam Singh and others for the reason that even though the vehicle was insured the Tribunal erred in holding that the insurer was not liable to indemnify the insured and pay the awarded compensation. In terms of the impugned award, a sum of Rs.1,72,800/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum has been awarded in favour of the claimant who got injured in a road accident on 5th April, 2000 with vehicle No. HIA 6056. While deciding issue No.8 i.e. “Whether the respondent No.1 was not holding valid and effective driving license, as alleged?”, the Tribunal held that the driver-Sh. Harnam Singh-respondent No.3 herein, was competent to drive the light motor vehicle in terms of driving license (Ext.RW-3/A) and as such could not have driven “Medium 3 Goods Vehicle”. The Tribunal held the driver-Sh. Harnam Singh-respondent No.3 herein, of the vehicle in question, which was owned by the appellant herein, to be negligent in driving vehicle No.HIA-6056. The liability to pay the awarded compensation was fastened upon the insured but since the vehicle in question was insured, therefore the insurer was directed to pay the awarded amount and recover from the owner. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Mr. Mohinder Singh Thakur has vehemently argued that the compensation awarded is much on the higher side and the driver was holding an effective and valid licence and as such he is authorized to drive light transport vehicle and the Tribunal has erred in holding that the driver was not possessing an effective and a valid driving license. That Sh. Harnam Singh was possessing driving license (Ext.RW-3/A) is not in dispute. In terms of the said license he was authorized to drive light motor vehicle. Admittedly, the vehicle in question was a 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 4 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 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 erred in not holding so. Consequently, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No.8 are set aside and the appeal is allowed. The vehicle being fully insured, the insurer is liable to indemnify the insured and as such pay the compensation to the claimant. The impugned award is modified to the aforesaid extent and the appeal is allowed. 5 It shall be open for the appellant to move an appropriate application for release of the amount deposited, if any. (Sanjay Karol), November 20, 2008(R) Judge.