1. The appellant, National Insurance Company, being aggrieved by the Judgment and Award dated 11th March, 2008, passed by the Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, North Goa, Panaji in Claim Petition No. 101/2005, has approached this Court by the aforesaid first appeal. By the impugned judgment and award, Respondent No.1's claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was partly allowed and the respondents No.2, 3 and the appellant, jointly and severally directed to pay to the respondent No.1, an amount of Rs.1,59,150/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the sum of Rs.1,17,150/- from the date of filing of the petition till the date of payment of entire claim.

2. Learned Presiding Officer of the MACT, framed as many as 5 issues, which read thus:

“1. Whether the claimant proves that on 17.11.2004 at 17.00 hours at Porvorim, the respondent no.1 drove the Maruti van bearing No.GA-01/T-4678 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against his scooter?

2. Whether the claimant proves that as a result of the said accident he sustained grievous injuries resulting in permanent disability?

3. Whether the claimant proves that he is entitled for total compensation of Rs.2,96,150/-?

4. Whether the respondent no.3 proves that accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving by the claimant?

5. Whether the respondent no.3 proves that he is not liable to pay any compensation to the applicant as the insured has violated the terms and conditions of the policy?”

3. In order to prove his case, the respondent No.1-claimant adduced evidence of six witnesses. Respondent No. 2 examined himself and one more witness. So far as the appellant-original respondent No.3 is concerned, one witness, namely Marudraj Gaokar was examined as RW.1. Learned Presiding Officer answered issues no.1 and 2 in the affirmative, third issues was answered partly in the affirmative, while issues No.4 and were answered in the negative.

4. The appellant-original respondent No.3-Insurance Company by filing this appeal is mainly assailing the findings of the learned Presiding Officer on issue No.5. Respondents No.2 and 3 i.e. the driver and the owner have not challenged the impugned judgment and award by filing any appeal, nor they have filed cross objection in this appeal. This appeal is, therefore, restricted to issue No.5 i.e. 4 fa268-08ssm Whether the appellant-original respondent no.3 is liable to pay compensation to the claimant as the insured had violated the terms and conditions of the policy?

5. Mr. Timble, learned Counsel for the appellant invited my attention to the provisions of Sections 2(14) and 2(17), along with the driving licence of respondent No.2, which is annexed at page 31 of the paper book. Mr. Timble submits that the vehicle, in question, was a “goods carriage” and therefore, is a “transport vehicle” within the meaning of section 2(47) of the M.V. Act. He further submitted that respondent No.2, however, was authorised to drive only (i) motor cycle without gear, (ii) motor cycle with gear and (iii) Light motor vehicle and he was not granted licence to drive “transport vehicle”. Thus, he submits that respondent No. 3 violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy by allowing respondent No.2 to drive the vehicle which he was not authorised to drive. He submitted that the impugned judgment and award, therefore, to that extent deserves to be quashed and set aside.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Joshi appearing for respondents No.2 and 3 submitted that though the vehicle in question is a “transport vehicle” it is a light motor vehicle within the meaning of Section 2(21) and, therefore, it cannot be said that the insured violated the conditions of the insurance policy. Mr. Joshi submitted that the impugned judgment and award is in accordance with the provisions of law and, therefore, cannot be interfered with.

7. Ms. Kaur, learned Counsel for respondent No.1-original claimant submitted that the weight