FAO No.4165 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.4165 of 2009 Date of Decision. 12.08.2010 Hans Raj son of Shri Vasu Ram, resident of 409/10, Gali No.3, Indra Colony, Hisar (owner of offending motorcycle bearing registration No.HR-20N/1464). ......Appellant Versus Smt. Charanjit, 27 years, widow of Sanjay Kumar and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. Anurag Jain, Advocate with Mr. Sunil Saharan, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The owner of vehicle, who did not obtain a right of indemnity from an insurer for breach of terms of the policy for entrusting the vehicle to a person, who was not duly licenced, is on appeal. The accident was caused by a motorcyclist, who was supposed to have borrowed the vehicle from the owner and caused an accident. That gave place to a claim by the legal representatives of the deceased person. The driver of the motor cycle had a licence to drive a light motor vehicle, car, jeep and heavy motor vehicle but did not have a licence to drive a motor cycle. Motor cycle is a distinct category under Section 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act and if he did not have a driving licence to drive a motor cycle, though he FAO No.4165 of 2009 -2- had a licence to drive light motor vehicle, car, jeep, he could not be said to be duly licenced. The right of indemnity provided is, therefore, perfectly justified. 2. The appellant, however, contends that the person, who was responsible for the accident was not his workman, who could cast a vicarious liability on the owner. On the other hand, he had been his friend, who had borrowed the vehicle. As a principal tort feasor, who drove the vehicle, who has been arrayed as respondent No.5, shall also be liable. As an owner of the vehicle, which caused the accident, the appellant is also liable. The award of the Tribunal is modified only to make the appellant and the 5th respondent jointly and severely liable to satisfy the claim. As far as the insurer is concerned, the right of recovery could obtain only against his own insured and does not avail the insurance company to take any steps against the 5th respondent. 3. The appeal is disposed of to the above extent. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 12, 2010 Pankaj*