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

FAO-1193-2008 Date of decision : 04.12.2025 Kailash Chand and another ... Appellants Versus The New India Assurance Company Limited and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present: Mr. Arvind Kashyap, Advocate for the appellants.

Ms.Vibha Dhiman, Advocate for respondent no.1.

VIKAS BAHL, J.(ORAL)

1. The owner and driver of the offending vehicle have filed the present appeal challenging the award dated 22.01.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehgarh Sahib, (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) to the extent that respondent no.1 (insurance company) has been held entitled to recover the amount from the present appellants.

BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

2. The claimants had filed the claim petition under Section 166 read with Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for grant of compensation on account of death of Nanu and the Tribunal had granted an amount of Rs.1,42,000/- in favour of the claimants and had directed the insurance company to make the payment and had further held that insurance company was further entitled to recover the same from the appellants.

3. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 (insurance company) has pointed out that as far as the claimants are concerned, the amount has already been paid to them by the respondent no.1 in March 2008. The only issue which has been raised before this Court is as to whether the directions given by the Tribunal to the effect that respondent no.1 is entitled to recover the money from the present appellants is legal and valid or not.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

4. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that in the present case the sole reason given by the Tribunal for giving recovery rights to the insurance company is that appellant no.2 (driver) was not granted any licence to drive any heavy duty vehicle i.e., tanker. It is submitted that the said observations have been made on account of a perverse reading of the report of the Licencing Authority, Meerut, (U.P.) which has been exhibited by the insurance company itself. It is submitted that a closer perusal of the report of the Licencing Authority, which is duly exhibited, would show that endorsement for T.V. (Transport Vehicle) was made on 12.10.1998 on the driving licence of the appellant no.2 and thus, the appellant no.2 was entitled to drive a transport vehicle also from 12.10.1998 and that the licence was valid from 12.10.1998 to 11.10.2001. It is submitted that in the present case it is not in dispute that the accident had taken place on 12.06.2000 and thus, on the date of the said accident, appellant no.2 was entitled to drive the transport vehicle. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that as per the notification issued in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (4) of Section 41 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with respect to categorisation of vehicles for registration, tankers are included under the head “transport vehicles”. Reference in this regard has been made to the notification dated 19.06.1992 which was in force at the time of the accident and also to the subsequent notification dated 05.11.2004, which also shows that tankers are included under the heading “transport vehicles”. It is submitted that thus, the sole reason given by the Tribunal is perverse and against the record and deserves to be set aside and the appeal filed by the present appellants deserves to be allowed. It is further submitted that there was a stay in the present proceedings, on account of which no recovery has been effected from the present appellants.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.1

5. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 (insurance company), on the other hand, has submitted that the findings of the Tribunal are in accordance with law and deserves to be upheld. It is argued that respondent no.1 is in possession of a document which shows that the validity of the licence is from 29.10.2004 to