The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Insurance Company's defence could succeed only if it was proved that the accident had taken place solely because the driver was not possessing the requisite type of licence.

V.K.Bali, J.

1. A Division Bench (comprising two of us, V.K. Bali and Jasbir Singh, JJ) on 25.11.2002, passed the following order of reference to a Full Bench.

"This matter was admitted to be heard by D.B. We have heard arguments at some length. We are prima facie of the view that the law laid down by Division Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shinder Kaur and Ors., A.I.R. 1998/- P & H 184, needs reconsideration. We may mention that sitting singly, one of us (V.K.Bali, J.) had taken the view contrary to the one reflected in Shinder Kaurs case (supra). Of course, aforesaid DB judgment of this Court was not cited. It may be mentioned that when the matter was admitted to DB, it is possible that at that stage the aforesaid DB judgment was also cited. The ontroversy, it appears can not be settled by a Division Bench inasmuch as if we might ultimately take the view contrary to the one reflected in Shinder Kaurs case (supra), it shall not be permissible for us to do that. The matter, in our view needs to be considered by a Full Bench. Let this matter be now heard by the Full Bench. We are told that the points involved in this case are subject matter of decision in a number of pending cases. That being the position, Hon ble the Chief Justice might consider the desirability of constituting a Full Bench as early as possible."

That is how this case is before this Full Bench.

2 Before we may proceed any further, we would like to mention that it is apparent from reading of order,reproduced above, that one of us (V.K.Bali, J) in Hardayan Singh v. Chiranji Lal and Ors., (2002-3)132 P.L.R. 464, had taken a view contrary to the one reflected in Shinder Kaurs case (supra). The matter was not referred to a larger Bench at that time as the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Shinder Kaurs case (supra) was not at all cited.

3. In National Insurance Company Limited v. Shinder Kaur, A.I.R. 1998 Punjab and Haryana 184 : (1998-1) 118 P.L.R. 369 the Tribunal, with respect to the plea that the driver did not have a valid driving licence to drive the tractor had also held that the licence had been issued to him to drive a motor vehicle and it included a tractor. A further finding came to be recorded by the Tribunal that intention of the parties had to be seen. The application submitted by the driver for obtaining the driving licence spelt out that he had applied for issuance of a driving licence pertaining to light vehicles and motor car and tractor were covered within the definition of light motor vehicles and consequently, the Insurance Company could not wriggle out of its liability to pay the compensation. On these findings, the Tribunal proceeded to calculate the compensation and passed the award.

3.1 Before the Division Bench, learned counsel representating the Insurance Company urged that the driver, who was driving the tractor did not have the licence to drive the same and therefore, it must be taken that he was driving the vehicle without proper authority or a licence and thus the Insurance Company could not be held liable to pay the compensation. This contention was sought to be countered by learned counsel appearing for the claimants by contending that intention of the legislature has to be seen and it was apparent that the intention was to get a licence for driving the light motor vehicles which included tractor and by no stretch of imagination, it should or could be held that the driver did not have the licence to drive the tractor.

3.2 The Division Bench relied upon the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act No. 59 of 1988 (for short the "Act"), pertaining to driver as given in sub-section (9) of Section 2 driving licence as given in sub-section (10) of Section 2, light motor vehicle occurring in sub-section (21) of Section 2, motor car and motor cycle in sub-sections (26) and (27) of Section 2 and Section 3 dealing with necessity for driving licence as also judicial precedents in Pakala Narayana Swami v. Emper