IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***

FAO-5742-2009 Date of decision : 16.09.2025 The New India Assurance Company Limited ... Appellant Versus Dharampal and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present: Mr.Paul S. Saini, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr.Hemant Hans, Advocate for Mr.Shashi Kant Gupta, Advocate for respondent no.1.

VIKAS BAHL, J.(ORAL)

1. The Insurance Company has filed the present appeal challenging the award dated 25.08.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Narnaul.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the only challenge in the present appeal is to the finding of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal under issues no.2 and 3 to the extent that the light motor vehicle licence issued in favour of respondent no.2 herein -Hawa Singh (driver) has been held to be valid for the purpose of driving the offending vehicle i.e., Mahindra Pick-up Van, which is a transport vehicle and the same has been held to be valid without there being any special endorsement in the said licence with respect to the driver being authorized to drive a transport vehicle. It is submitted that the same is in violation of Section 10(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988. It is prayed that the finding on the said aspect be set aside and the award dated 25.08.2009 be modified to the said extent and the insurance company be absolved of its liability or at least recovery rights be given to the insurance company against the owner and driver.

3. Learned counsel for respondent no.1-claimant has submitted that the issue in the present case is squarely covered against the appellant- insurance company in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Rambha Devi and others reported as 2025(3) SCC 95 and thus, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.

4. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has perused the paper book and finds that the present appeal is meritless and deserves to be dismissed.

5. It is not in dispute that respondent no.1-Dharampal (claimant) had filed a claim petition impleading Hawa Singh (driver), Purshotam Lal (owner) and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (insurer) as parties and the accident had taken place on 03.04.2007 and the offending vehicle was a Pick-up Mahindra Van bearing registration no.RJ-18-GA-0793, which as per the case of the present appellant was a transport vehicle.

6. On 21.05.2008, the Tribunal had framed the following issues:-

“5. Following issues were framed by determination in the claim petition on 21.5.2008.

1. Whether petitioner Dharampal suffered injuries in a road accident which took place on 3.45.2007 near sports stadium Narnaul (Police Station City Narnaul) due to rash and negligent driving on the pat of respondent No.1 the driver Pick-up Van No.RJ-18-GA-

0793? OPP

2. Whether the driver of Pick-up Van in question did not hold a valid driving licence, if so to what effect? OPR-3

3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to award of compensation and if so, how much and from whom?

OPP

4. Relief.”

7. Under issue no.1, the Tribunal had observed that the claimant had suffered injuries in a road side accident which had taken place on 03.04.2007 due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and thus, had decided the issue no.1 in favour of the claimant. The finding on the said issue is not challenged before this Court. Issues no.2 and 3 were interconnected and were decided jointly. Total amount of Rs.60,000/- along with interest was awarded as compensation. The said amount of compensation is also not challenged before this Court. On the aspect as to who is to pay the compensation, the Tribunal after taking into consideration the fact that the driver was having a valid licence which authorized him to drive the light motor vehicle (LMV), had rejected the argument of the appellant to the effect that the said licence did not authorize the driver to drive a tran