Mr. Justice P.N. Nag, President—Both these appeals raise a common question of law and can be decided by a common judgment.

2. The question that arises for consideration in these Appeals is : whether the driver, who was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident, was not authorised to drive on the hill roads as no such endorsement was made by the Licencing Authority on the driving licence.

3. We may refer to facts briefly of Appeal No. 57 of 1995 with a view to appreciating the point at issue. Santokh Raj by way of complaint approached the District Forum, Mandi, that he owned a Maruti Van No. HPY-195 which was insured with the opposite party (hereinafter to be referred to as appellant) for the period 11.7.91 to 10.7.92. On 28.6.92, when the Insurance Policy was in operation, his vehicle met with an accident and was damaged. Report of the accident was lodged with the appellant, who deputed their Surveyor to assess the extent of damage and the Surveyor reported the damage to the extent of Rs. 25,000/-. The complainant (hereinafter to be referred to as respondent) approached the appellant to make payment on account of insurance claim but the claim was repudiated on 4.5.93 on the ground that the driver did not have me endorsement for driving on hilly roads on the driving licence. The District Forum has directed the payment of Rs. 10,773/-as insurance amount with interest @ 12% per annum and costs of Rs. 200/- vide its judgment dated 19.9.95 against which the present appeal has been preferred

4. Mr. Deepak Bhasin, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the driver, while driving his vehicle at the time of accident, did not have a valid licence as the driving licence had no endorsement for hilly roads by the Licencing Authority. Such an endorsement was necessary in view of the Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940 as applied to Himachal Pradesh and these Motor Vehicle Rules were framed under the Old Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. According to him, the rules were still operative. In such a situation, it cannot be said that the driver had a valid licence and, therefore, the appellants are justified in repudiating the claim.

5. There is no force in such submissions. It has not been shown how the Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940 framed under the Old Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 would be applicable to Himachal Pradesh and whether such rule is directory or mandatory. The Counsel of the respondent has brought to our notice that the Government of Himachal Pradesh vide Notification No. 4-3(12)/78-II-3617 dated 2.4.93, a copy whereof is available on the record, has made it clear that the provisions of the Punjab Rules under the old Act regarding endorsement for hill roads is not to be insisted upon in view of the provisions of Section 13 of Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 which nowhere provides that for driving the vehicle on hill roads, an endorsement should be there on the licence to this effect.

6. No doubt, as we have been informed that Himachal Pradesh Government has not framed any rules as yet, after enactment of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In the absence of the rules, the Notification dated 2.4.93 will apply, according to which, endorsement for driving on hill roads in the licence should not be insisted upon. It has further been contended by the Counsel for the appellant that the Notification dated 2.4.93 is subsequent to the date of accident and cannot govern the case between the parties. This contention is also devoid of force as the aforementioned notification is only of clarificatory nature and, therefore, govern the cases of accident which have occurred earlier.

7. There is no force in these appeals and the appeals are accordingly dismissed.

There is no orders as to costs.

Appeals dismissed.