FAO No.3903 of 2009 (O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... FAO No.3903 of 2009(O&M) Decided on : September 16, 2009 Suresh Kumar ... Appellant VERSUS Dalip Singh and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Tajinder Bishnoi Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Gopal Mittal, Advocate for the respondent – Insurance Company. A.N.JINDAL, J.- Vide the impugned award dated 10.2.2009, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehabad awarded a compensation to the tune of Rs.1,22,494/- to Dalip Singh - respondent No.1, on account of the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicle accident, against Suresh Kumar - appellant (owner of the vehicle) and respondents No.2 and 3 jointly and severally. However, liberty was granted to the respondent – Insurance Company to recover the same from the appellant. In this appeal by the owner of the offending vehicle i.e. Motorcycle Hero Honda Splender, Colour Red No.Applied For (later on given Reg.No.HR22D-0871), it has been submitted that the liberty so granted to the respondent – Insurance Company is not proper as respondent No.3, driver of the offending vehicle was holding a driving licence for `Light Motor Vehicle' and was, thus, competent to drive a motor cycle. FAO No.3903 of 2009 (O&M) [ 2 ] Factual background of the case is that on 8.1.2005, respondent No.1 suffered injuries in a motor vehicle accident, which took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.3 i.e, driver of the offending Motor Cycle. As an aftermath of the accident, respondent No.1 filed a claim petition, which was contested by the appellant and other respondents. Upon the pleadings of the parties, the issues were framed and the relevant issues, which are the subject of controversy in the present appeal, are reproduced as under :- “Issue No.1 and 2 ...................... 3. Whether the motorcycle bearing registration No.HR22D- 0871 was being driven by a person who was not holding a valid and effective driving licence? OPR-3 4. Whether the abovesaid motorcycle was being driven in violation of terms and conditions of Insurance Policy? OPR-3” The contention on behalf of the respondent – Insurance Company, that Narender Singh – respondent No.3, driver of the offending motorcycle was not holding a valid driving licence, was accepted by the Tribunal and issues Nos.3 and 4 (afore-quoted) were decided in favour of the Company. Arguments heard and record perused. Having examined the issue, it appears that respondent No.3 was holding a driving licence for 'Light Motor Vehicles' at the time of the accident and it was valid at that time. Atam Parkash, Licensing Clerk from FAO No.3903 of 2009 (O&M) [ 3 ] the office of the Licensing Authority was examined as RW1, who stated that Narender Singh was authorised to drive Light Motor Vehicle. The term `Light Motor Vehicle' as defined under Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is reproduced as under:- “light motor vehicle means 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” It is also well-settled by now that a person holding a driving licence for a heavy vehicle could drive the lighter vehicle. The Tribunal appears to have taken a wrong view of the matter and while holding that a person holding a driving licence for `Light Motor Vehicle' could not drive the motor cycle. Thus, the findings of the Tribunal on issues No.3 and 4 are reversed and it is held that since Narender Singh – respondent No.3 was holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident, therefore, the respondent – Insurance Company is liable to pay the award amount and it shall have no right to recover the said amount from the appellant. No other argument was raised. Appeal stands allowed in the above terms. September 16, 2009 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE