Endorsements on driving licences are necessary for operating transport vehicles, establishing liability standards under the Motor Vehicles Act.

1. This appeal under S.173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') arises out of the award passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kullu (for short 'the Tribunal') in Claim Petition No. 6 of 1996; decided on 28.11.1997.

2. The material facts are that a Maruti van, admittedly registered as a taxi, bearing registration No. HP 02-4181. This taxi was being driven by its driver Sunil Kumar on 10.6.1995. At about 8 a.m. this taxi hit the petitioner, Baldasi. The taxi was insured with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Baldasi filed a claim petition under S.166 of the Act. The factum of the accident was not denied. However, according to the owner the accident had occurred due to negligence of the claimant herself. In the alternative it was pleaded that since the vehicle was insured with the insurance company the liability, if any, was that of the insurance company. The insurance company, on the other hand, took up the plea that the driver did not have a valid driving licence and, therefore, it was not liable.

3. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimant was entitled to compensation of Rs.29,570. It, however, held that this amount was to be paid by the owner only. The registration certificate of the vehicle was proved on record as Exh. R1 which showed that it was a transport vehicle. The driving licence of the driver was proved on record as Exh. R2. This driving licence permitted the driver Sunil Kumar to drive a light motor vehicle only and the endorsement to drive a transport vehicle was made on 22.1.1996, after the accident had taken place on 10.6.1995. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that on the date of the accident the driver did not have a valid driving licence to drive a transport vehicle and, therefore, exonerated the insurance company.

4. Mr. Tarlok Chauhan, learned counsel for the appellant, has placed reliance upon two judgments delivered by Hon' ble the Chief Justice of this court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shangri , 2006 ACJ 173 (HP) and Nikka Ram v. Bimla , F.A.O. No. 91 of 2004, wherein it was held that once the driving licence permitted the driver to drive a light motor vehicle, it was immaterial whether the vehicle was a transport vehicle or non - transport vehicle as long as it was a light motor vehicle.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Ashwani Sharma, Advocate, relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Suraj Parkash , 2001 ACJ 85 (HP). In that case the Division Bench even in the case of a taxi which was a light motor vehicle held that there must be an endorsement to drive a transport vehicle. He also relied upon a judgment of another learned single Judge of this court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Savitri , F.A.O. No. 255 of 1998; decided on 12.8.2005, wherein following the ratio in Suraj Parkash 's case (supra) the learned single Judge has held that the insurance company is not liable when the vehicle being driven is a taxi and the driver only has a licence to drive a light motor vehicle without endorsement to drive a transport vehicle.

6. There is apparent conflict between the judgments delivered by the two learned single Judges. They have taken opposite views. Even otherwise, I feel that there are certain questions which have not been gone into in any one of these judgments. An important question of law arises in this appeal as to whether even in case of light motor vehicle it is essential to have an endorsement on the driving licence entitling the driver to drive a transport vehicle?

7. One important fact which has to be noticed is that correctness of the judgment of the Div