127 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 22.04.2025 FAO-4075-2016 (O&M)

IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD ....Appellant Versus LAJWANTI AND ORS ...Respondents FAO-5483-2016 LAJWANTI AND OTHERS ....Appellants Versus KRISHAN AND OTHERS ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present: Mr. Ankur Gupta, Advocate for the appellant in FAO No.4075 of 2016 and for respondent No.4/Insurance Co. in FAO No.5483 of 2016..

Mr. Maneet Kaushik, Advocate for Mr. Ashit Malik, Advocate for the appellant in FAO No.5483 of 2016 and for respondents No.1 to 5 in FAO No.4075 of 2016.

Mr. Sumit Gupta, Advocate for respondents No.6 and 7.

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

By way of instant order, I intend to dispose off the afore-

captioned two appeals, filed by the rival parties, impugning the same award passed by MACT, Karnal.

Deepak Kumar

2. FAO No.4075 of 2016 is at the behest of Insurer. FAO No.5483 of 2016 is at the behest of claimants.

3. Insurer questions the liability on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing valid driving licence on the date of accident. The contention is that vehicle falls within the category of Heavy Goods Vehicle. The driver possessed licence valid for LMV and Transport Motor Vehicles. Heavy Goods Carriage Vehicles being different from the Transport Motor Vehicles having gross weight of more than 7,500 Kg, the licence of the driver, cannot be held to be valid. Ld. Counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the Transport Vehicle as contemplated under Section 2(47) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1988) is different from Heavy Goods Vehicle as adumbrated under Section 2(16). Thus, in the absence of there being any endorsement on the licence qua Heavy Goods Vehicle, the licence cannot be held to be valid. Reliance is being placed upon Five Judges Bench of Supreme Court in the case of ‘M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs.

Rambha Devi and others’, (2025) 3 SCC 95

4. Having heard counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company, this Court finds that the argument raised by the counsel sans merit and deserves to be rejected. Reliance placed upon ratio of law laid down in Rambha Devi’s case (supra), is misplaced. The Authorization Certificate of N.P.

Deepak Kumar (Goods), Transport Department, Haryana in Form 47 as described under Rule 87(2) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, reads as under:

TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, HARYANA FORM 47 [See Rule 87(2) of CMVR-1989]

AUTHORISATION CERTIFICATE OF N.P. (GOODS)

1. National Permit Authorization No : NP/HR/10/112013/37341 Dated:20-Nov-2013

2. Name & Address of Permit Holder : Sanjay :13 VILL KUTAIL, DISTT KARNAL, HARYANA-132001

3. Registration Mark of Vehicle : HR38R 5694 4. Date of Registration : 29-Nov-2004 5. Maker & Model : EICHER 1107

6. Engine Number : E483NDHZ44495

7. Chassis Number : 20GCYZ886465

8. Validity of NP Authorization : 21-Oct-2014 9. Validity of Basic Goods Permit : 21-Oct-2016

10.Type of Vehicle : HEAVY GOODS VEHICLE

11. GVW (in Kgs) : 10500 12. Unladen Weight (in Kgs) : 3650

13. Seating Capacity : 3 xxxx”

5. Section 2(16), 2(17), 2(23), 2(47) and Section 10 of the Act of

1988, read as under:

“(16) “heavy goods vehicle” means any goods carriage the gross vehicle weight of which, or a tractor or a road-roller the unladen weight of either of which, exceeds 12,000 kilograms;

(17) “heavy passenger motor vehicle” means any public service vehicle or private service vehicle or educational institution Deepak Kumar bus or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of any of which, or a motor car the unladen weight of which, exceeds 12,000 kilograms;

(23) “medium goods vehicle” means any goods carriage other than a light motor vehicle or a heavy goods vehicle;

(47) “transport vehicle” means a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle;

10. Form and contents of licences to drive.—(1) Every learner’s licence and driving licence, exc