i1 49 2 FAO No400 of 200808M1and FAO No401 of 2008 1 Ir INTHE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB 8 HARYANA CHANDIGARH FAO N2400 of 2008108M1 Dateof decision September202010 National Insurance CompanyLtd Appellant Versus Gurcharan Kaurand another Respondents t FAO No401 of 2008 r National Insurance CompanyLtd 0 Appellant Versus X InderjitKaur and another Respondents X CORAM HONBLE MR JUSTICE K KANNAN Present Mo L NSuri Senior Advocate with Z Mrlleeraj Khanna Advocate for the appellant 2 Mr Chanan SinghAdvocate for respondentNo X Cll MiSunil AgnihotriAdvocate for the claimants e 1V7kR wa Z K Kannan J Iorall Om 1 The Insurance Companyis on appeal in two connected matters arisingout of the same accident challengingIiabiiity on the groundthat the driver did not have a valid drivingIicense Although several groundshave been taken this was the onlyground urgedat the timeof argumentsThe driver of the insureds offendingvehicle has proved to have only a Iicense to drive a motor cycle and car but did not have Iicense to drive a tractor The Iearned Senior cou nsel relied on the judgment of a Division Bench in ional Insurance CompanvLtd Vs ShinderKaur 1199841PL f369 to contend that a tractor does not come i J IAA Parkash Om 2013.04.23 13: 01 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 50 17 FAO No400 of 2008OSMIand FAO No 2401 of 2008 2 withinthe deflnitionof motor car as defined under Section 2 261of Motor VehicleAct 1988 althoughit is a Iightmotor vehicle and hence a driver who was drivingtractor without a specificdrivingIicense to drive the same was not duly Iicensed and he could not be said to have an effective drivingIicense Il 2 The reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench is unfortunate This judgment was expresslyheld not to Iaydown t correct Iaw in a full Bench rulingof this Court in Nationai Insurance Co j Ltd VsOarveen Kumar 2005 ACJ 178 l20051139 PLR 230 With several effective search tools that are available the counsel and more Z particularly Senior counsel must guardthemselves not to cite judgments X which are over ruled The counsel owe a dutyto Court to ensure that the Z majestyof Iaw is upheldand a judgment that is found not to Iaydown 2 correct Iaw does not get in to currency of citations The full Bench also held citing the judgmentof SupremeCou rt in National Insurance X Companv Vs Swaran Sinqh AlR 2004 SC 1531 that the insurer could succeed onlyif it is provedthat the accident had taken placeonlybecause m the driver was not possessingthe requisitetypeof Iicense Z 3 It must be noticed that Section 10 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 that contains form and content of motor does not contain a specificcategoryIike tractor for grantof Iicense This Coun has alreadyheld In United India Insurance Companv Vs Tarawanti and others Manu1PH1144912010decided on 23 72010 that a Iicenseto drive a Car and Jeep could not be said to be disqualifiedto drive a tractor Even the form of applicationcontained in Form 40f Central Motor Vehicles Rules does not contain a specificcategoryIike an applicationform for tractor Iicense There must be specificevidence Ied throughthe Transport 4 Authorityabout the nature of applicalionfor Iicensefor tractor and how the Parkash Om 2013.04.23 13: 01 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 51 e FAO No2400 of 2008108M1 and FAO No 2401 of 2008 3 driving skills involved are different and how the accident itself could have been caused byeach of such skillsThere is no such evidence 4 The appealare dismissed with costs assessed at Rs0001 K KANNANI JUDGE September20 2010 archana r0 0 Y I D Z Z 0 Z 011 t3 Z 41llL 7511re 1rte 1 9 r Cl Parkash Om 2013.04.23 13: 01 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document