IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 29.04.2025 OM PARKASH .... Appellant VERSUS AMARJEET (DECEASED) THR LRS AND ORS .... Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present : Mr. Anil Kumar Gahlawat, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Hardeep Saini, Advocate for Mr. Ravinder Kumar Rana, Advocate for respondents No.1 & 2 Mr. Rajbir Singh, Advocate for respondent No.3.

ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the driver of the vehicle being WagonR car bearing registration No.DL-9-CD-5648 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’) aggrieved by the findings returned by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhajjar (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) vide award dated 28.01.2015 holding the driver (the appellant herein) and the owner (respondent No.4 herein) liable to pay the compensation and exonerating respondent No.3-Insurance Company herein.

2. Since the factum of the accident is not in dispute, the facts, as recorded in the impugned award passed by the Tribunal, are not being adverted to herein for the sake of brevity.

AMAN JAIN

2025.04.30 10:09

3. Learned counsel for the driver-appellant would contend that, as noticed in para No.22 of the impugned award dated 28.01.2015, the driver- appellant was holding a driving licence (Ex.R-2) which was valid upto 22.02.2012 for driving HTV (Heavy Transport Vehicle) and that since the offending vehicle was a WagonR car, a LMV (Light Motor Vehicle), respondent No.3-Insurance Company was exonerated. Learned counsel for the driver-appellant has relied upon the judgments passed by this Court in FAO-2109-2016 [Ranjit Singh V/s Dheeraj Singh Gusain & Ors. decided on 15.10.2019]; FAO-1612-2016 [National Insurance Company Limited V/s Parkashi & Ors. decided on 10.08.2016] and FAO-5833-2011 [Harsewak Singh son of Niranjan Singh V/s Lajo Devi wife of Gurmail Singh decided on 25.03.2013] to contend that since the driver-appellant was holding a licence to drive HTV (Heavy Transport Vehicle), it would in itself be a sufficient qualification to drive LMV (Light Motor Vehicle) also.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company would contend that mechanism of both the LMV and the HTV are different and since the driver-appellant was driving a Light Motor Vehicle and not holding the licence for the same, hence no fault can be found with the findings returned by the Tribunal.

5. Heard.

6. In the present case, admittedly, the driver-appellant of the offending vehicle was holding a valid licence to drive HTV (Heavy Transport Vehicle) on the date of the accident.

7. This Court in Ranjit Singh’s case (supra) has held as under :

AMAN JAIN

2025.04.30 10:09 ‘Reference at this stage can be made to a recent judgment of this Court in a case of National Insurance Company Ltd vs. Parkashi Devi and others, 2017 (1) PLR 361 wherein while considering the Harsewak Singh's case (supra), this Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Insurance Co., who filed the appeal on the ground that the driver was not holding a valid driving license to drive a car, as he was possessing driving license to drive HTV and motorcycle whereas the offending car was in the category of LMV. In para 13 to

15, it has been observed as under :

13. Coming to the second argument regarding not holding a valid driving license, though, issue No.3 was framed on the point, but no evidence was led by the appellant – Insurer in this regard and accordingly, it has not been discussed by the Tribunal. The copy of the driving licence, as shown by Ld. Counsel for the appellant – Insurer, reveals that it was valid from 31.10.2013 to 30.10.2016 and the driver Surender Singh was authorized to drive HTV and Motorcycle. The accident in question had occurred on 23.4.2014. In other words, on the date of accident, the driver of the AMAN JAIN

2025.04.30 10:09 offending vehicle was holding a driving license to drive `HTV' and `Motorcycle', but not `LMV'.

14. Similar issue was considered