Vijender Singh Malik, J.@mdashThis is an appeal by the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. They have challenged the award dated
16.02.2012 vide which respondent No. 1 Jaswant Singh has been held as not proved to be having a valid and effective driving licence at the time
of the accident under issue No. 6. In view of the finding on issue No. 6, learned Tribunal has exonerated the insurance company i.e. respondent
No. 2 and has held respondents No. 1 and 3 (appellants before this court) to be jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the
claimants. The short point involved in this appeal is as to whether Jaswant Singh, who was holding a driving licence authorizing him to drive a light
motor vehicle was entitled to drive a transport vehicle as Mohindra Pick Up No. PB-05H-9590 is. In view of the fact that this short question is
involved in this appeal, the facts of the matter are not required to be noticed here.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that a transport vehicle is included in the definition of Might motor vehicle'' as it appears in
section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the Act). According to him, light motor vehicle means a transport vehicle as per the
definition and, therefore, appellant No. 1 Jaswant Singh, who was holding a licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle was authorized to
drive a transport vehicle. He has supported his submission with a decision of this court in Oriental Insurance Company Vs. Mukesh, . In the
reported case, the driver was authorized to drive light motor vehicle. He was, however driving a passenger vehicle, on account of the driving of
which, death was caused. Insurance company claimed itself to be not liable to pay compensation. It has been held that light motor vehicle covers
both light passenger carriage vehicle and light goods carriage vehicle and, therefore, driver holding a valid driving licence for light motor vehicle was
authorized to drive a light goods vehicle as well.
3. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1, on the other hand, has submitted that the law laid down in the above cited decision cannot be followed
in view of the direct decision of Hon''ble Supreme Court of India on the point. He drew attention of this court to New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Vs. Prabhu Lal, According to him, this decision might not have been brought to the notice of Hon''ble Single Judge in Mukesh''s case supra. He
has further submitted that in view of the ratio of Prabhu Lal''s case supra, the appellant Jaswant Singh cannot be held to be holding a valid and
effective driving licence while driving the Mohindera Pick Up in question and, therefore, the insurance company was not liable to pay
compensation.
4. In Prabhu Lal''s case supra a transport vehicle was driven by a person, who possessed licence to drive light motor vehicle. The said vehicle met
with an accident causing injuries to a passenger. It was held that driver was not having licence to drive a transport vehicle in absence of necessary
endorsement in his licence to that effect as required u/s 3 of the Act and therefore, the insurance company was not liable to pay compensation.
5. Needless to say that in the face of ratio of Prabhu Lal''s case supra, the decision of this court in Mukesh''s case supra cannot be followed. The
decision in Prabhu Lal''s case supra is directly on the point involved in this appeal. Therefore, it is held that Jaswant Singh, who was holding a
driving licence to drive a light motor vehicle could not drive a transport vehicle, which the Mohindera Pick Up in question has been. Therefore,
finding of learned Tribunal on issue No. 6 is affirmed. In this view of the matter, the appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.
