IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA: FAO.No. 115/2001 Date of Decision: 17th November ,2008. United India Insurance Company. …Appellant. Versus: Smt.Sheetli and others. …Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting?1 . For the appellant: Mr.A.K.Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent-1. Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate. For Respondent-2. Mr.R.P.Singh, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, J(Oral) . The insurer United India Insurance Company Limited has filed the present appeal assailing the impugned award dated 12th January, 2001 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II), Shimla, H.P. titled as Smt. Sheetli Vs. Kanshi Ram and others. This Court on 24th October, 2005 passed the following orders: “The question involved in this appeal is “whether a driving license permitting the holder of the license to drive a light motor vehicle entitles him to drive a transport vehicle, the unladen weight of which is less than 7500 kg.”. This question has been referred to a larger Bench vide order dated 17.10.2005 in FAO No.307 of 1998. Therefore, 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 list this appeal after the decision of this question by the larger Bench in the said appeal.” The decision delivered by a Full Bench of this Court in FAO.No.307 of 1998, Prem Singh vs. Baldassi, decided on 30th September, 2008 has been placed on record by the Registry. In terms of the impugned award, the Tribunal awarded compensation to the claimant on account of death of her son, namely Sh. Kalu Ram in an accident which took place on 29th March, 1995. The Tribunal held that deceased Kalu Ram, aged 18 years, died in an accident due to the negligence of Sh.Gian Singh driver of vehicle No. HIS-3175 (DCM Toyata), which was owned by Sh. Kanshi Ram. After taking into the income of the deceased to be Rs. 1500/- per month and for the purpose of dependency deducting 1/3rd of the same the Tribunal held that the claimant was contributing Rs.1,000/- per month for family and by applying the multiplier of 15 awarded Rs.1,80,000/- as compensation on account loss of income and Rs.30,000/- on account of consortium charges. Apparently, while adding the aforesaid amount it committed an error and instead of directing payment of Rs.2,10,000/- it awarded a sum of Rs. 2,20,000/- to be paid to the claimant along with the interest. Since the vehicle was insured and its driver was held to have possessed an effective and a valid driving licence and there 3 was no breach of the terms of the policy, therefore, the liability to pay the amount was fastened upon the Insurer. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. 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. Sharma 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. However, the error in the calculation of the total sum due and payable to the claimant is quite apparent as only a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- and Rs.30,000/- had been awarded to the claimant. The error is corrected and it is directed that instead of Rs.2,20,000/- the claimant would be entitled to Rs.2,10,000/- along with interest as awarded by the Tribunal. The award is modified to the aforesaid extent. That the driver Shri Gian Singh was holding an effective and valid driving license to drive the light motor vehicle (Ext.RW-1/A) is not disputed. The same in any case stands proved on record by Sh. Padam Chand (RW-1). Admittedly the vehicle in question was a transport vehicle. 4 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 S.C.C. 464 wherein it has been 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 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 a 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. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is partly allowed and disposed of accordingly. (Sanjay Karol), November 17, 2008(R) Judge.