judgment

S.B. Sinha, J. —

1.Leave granted.

2.Appellant National Insurance Company is before us, aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 14th July, 2003, passed by a learned Single Judge of the Karnaraka High Court in M.F.A. No. 7788/2002 dismissing the appeal preferred against an award dated 17.9.2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (‘Tribunal’ for short) in M.V.C No.124/2000.

3.The fact of the matter relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal is as under :

The vehicle involved in the accident was a Matador Van bearing registration No. KA-23/2890. It had a Goods Carriage permit granted in terms of Form No.7 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It was insured with the appellant. The said vehicle met with an accident on 9.12.1999 causing death of one Gangawwa wife of the respondent No.1 herein. A contention was raised on behalf of the appellant that the driver of the said vehicle did not possess an effective licence to drive a transport vehicle.

4.An issue (being Issue No.3), inter alia, was framed in that behalf before the Tribunal, which reads as under:

“Whether the R-3 proves that driver of offending vehicle was not an authorised person to drive the same?”

5.The learned Tribunal in support of its award on Issue No.3, held:

“DW-1 in this cross examination admitted that offending vehicle is authorised to transport 3500 kgs. goods. Further, in this cross-examination stated that LMV means transport vehicle which unladen weight does not exceed 7500 kgs. Ex.D-2 at Column No.12 clearly shows that the unladen weight of the offending vehicle is 3500 kgs. Thereby it is very much clear that said unladen weight of the offending vehicle is much less than 7500 kgs. as admitted by DW-1 in his cross-examination which is also the effect as defined in the MV Act. So when the unladen weight of the offending vehicle is less than 7500 kgs. the RW-1 driver who is having DL as per Ex.D-3 is certainly authorised to drive the offending vehicle. The decision relied upon by Adv. for petitioners at serial No.2 ruling reported in 2000(5) KLJ 473 (DB) or own Hon’ble High Court had clearly held that where offending vehicle is weighing 4960 kgs. driven by a person having DL to drive the LMV, there is breach of issuance policy, as statute classifies vehicle weighing below 7500 kgs. as LMVs and Insurer is liable to satisfy award in respect of accident that occurred when the vehicle was being driven by driver holding such licence. So in view of the decision of Division Bench of our own Hon’ble High Court and also the decision of Supreme Court referred at Sl. No.1 Adv. for petitioners it is very much clear that RW1 is having valid DL as per Exh.D3 and the offending vehicle unladen weight is 3500 kgs. is certainly was having effective and valid DL and so R3 has failed to prove the issue No.3 and accordingly I answer the same in the negative.”

6.The High Court on an appeal preferred by the appellant herein opined :

“Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company, questioning the liability, contended that the driver did not possess a valid licence to drive LMV. According to the respondents, the driver had driving licence to drive LMV, a transport vehicle. According to the appellant, the vehicle in question involved in the accident is a transport vehicle. The said contention cannot be accepted by this Court, in view of the fact that claimants are third parties even on the ground that there is violation of terms and conditions of policy, the insurance company cannot be permitted to contend that it has no liability. Accordingly, I do not see any merit in this appeal.”

7.Mr. Vishnu Mehra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that the High Court committed a serious error in passing the impugned judgment in so far as it failed to take into consideration that a light motor vehicle cannot be a transport vehicle within the meaning of the provisions of the Act. It was submitted that for the purpose of grant of licence fo