IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.3423 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision 17.11.2009 National Insurance Company Limited ...... Appellant VERSUS Jyoti Devi and others ...... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Paul S.Saini, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.Ajit Malik, Advocate, for respondents No.6 and 7. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL): C.M.No.15351-CII of 2009 For the reasons, mentioned in the application, delay in filing the appeal is condoned. FAO No.3423 of 2009 This appeal, preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company, is directed against the award dated 02.02.2009, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonepat, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.3,91,500/- alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum was awarded in favour of claimants-respondents No.1 to 5 and against the appellant and respondents No.6 & 7 jointly and severally. The only ground set up by the appellant-Insurance Company to challenge the award is that the insurance company could not be fastened with the liability as the driver-respondent No.6 was not holding a valid driving licence to drive the offending vehicle i.e. TATA 407, which could be termed as heavy transport vehicle, at the time of accident. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has FAO No.3423 of 2009(O&M) -2- stated that the driving licence, produced on record as Ex.R1 was issued to respondent No.6 on 19.05.2006 for driving the Light Motor Vehicle (NT) and the accident took place on 23.05.2006. As such, the respondent No.6 was holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident. Having perused the record and heard the arguments, the respondent-driver having a valid driving licence was certainly competent to drive the vehicle. It is not established that TATA-407 vehicle was having unladen load of more than 7500 kilograms and fell within the definition of Heavy Transport Vehicle. The Tribunal appears to have appreciated the evidence in the right perspective and no such defect or illegality could be found in the impugned judgment suggesting interference by this Court. No merits. Dismissed. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 17.11.2009 mamta-II