IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO No.16 of 2005 alongwith FAO No.222 of 2005. Decided on: 30.10.2009 FAO No.16 of 2005. Sh.Sher Singh ...Appellant. VERSUS D.R.Sehgal & ors. ...Respondents. FAO No.222 of 2005. ShDeep Kumar ...Appellant. VERSUS Sh.D.R.Sehgal and others ...Respondents _____________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1No For the Appellant: Mr.J.L.Bhardwaj, Advocate with Mr.R.S.Gautam, Advocate, for the driver of the vehicle. For the Respondents: Mr.Harsh Khanna, Advocate, for the owner of the vehicle. Mr.G.D.Sharma, counsel for the Insurance Company. Ms.Meena Thakur vice Sh.Rahul Mahajan, Advocates, for the respondents No.5 and 6. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes …2… Deepak Gupta,Judge (Oral) Both these appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment since they arise out of the same accident and from the same award. The question involved in this case is very short, i.e., whether the Insurance Company has wrongly been exonerated of its liability to pay the compensation. The only ground on which the Insurance Company has been exonerated is that the driving licence held by the petitioner-driver who was driving a three wheeler scooter entitled him to drive a motor cycle, scooter and light motor vehicle but did not bear an endorsement permitting him to drive a transport vehicle. This question is squarely covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Annappa Irappa Nesaria Alias Nesaragi and others 2008(3) SCC 464 wherein the Apex Court held as follows:- “20. From what has been noticed hereinbefore, it is evident that “transport vehicle” has now been substituted for “medium goods vehicle” and “heavy goods vehicle”. The light motor vehicle continued, at the relevant point of time to cover both “light passenger carriage vehicle” and “light goods carriage vehicle”. A …3… driver who had a valid licence to drive a light motor vehicle, therefore, was authorized to drive a light goods vehicle as well.” The Apex Court clearly held that prior to 28.3.2001, there was no requirement of separate endorsement for driving a transport vehicle since the term “light motor vehicle” included a transport vehicle. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, the award of the learned Tribunal cannot be upheld. Accordingly the appeals are allowed and the award of the Tribunal to the extent it exonerates the Insurance Company is set aside and the Insurance Company is held liable jointly and severally alongwith the appellants to pay the awarded amount. The learned Tribunal had directed the Insurance Company to satisfy the award and recover the amount from the owner and the driver of the three wheeler scooter. This direction is also set aside since the Insurance Company has been held liable to indemnify the insured. The Insurance Company accordingly will have no right to recover the amount from the appellant(s) herein. …4… Both the appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. October 30, 2009 ( Deepak Gupta ) (m) Judge.