( 1 ) IN this cage, the short question relates to whether on the date of accident while driving Tempo No. HYJ - 1166, the driver Anil Kumar was having a valid driving licence. This offending vehicle is a tempo Tata 407 which was being used for transporting goods.

( 2 ) THERE is no dispute in between the parties to the effect that licence No. 37988/rsd issued to Anil Kumar on 13/09/1993 for driving a scooter/motor cycle/car/jeep. This fact was proved by Vijender Singh, clerk from Licensing authority, Rohtak who verified the licence. This fact is also supported by RW-1, Mr. R. K. Bahl, AO of National Insurance Co. There is also no dispute about the fact that an endorsement was made on this driving licence for driving Light Transport Vehicle (hereinafter referred to as ltv for short) as well on 30/07/1996 vide Ex. RW-1/3.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant/insurance Company submits that this driving licence could not be used for driving the vehicle in question.

( 4 ) SECTION 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter called the Act for short) before its amendment which came into force on 1/07/1989 reads as under :

"form and contents of licences to drive - (1) Every learner s licence and driving licence, except a driving licence issued under Section 18, shall be in such form and shall contain such information as may be prescribed by the central Government. (2) A learner s licence or, as the case may be, driving licence shall also be expressed as entitling the holder to drive a motor vehicle of one or more of the following classes, namely:-- (a) motor cycle without gear : (b) motor cycle with gear : (c) invalid carriage : (d) light motor vehicle : (e) medium goods vehicle : (f) medium passenger motor vehicle : (g) heavy goods vehicle : (h) heavy passenger motor vehicle : (i) road-roller: (j) motor vehicle of a specified description. "

( 5 ) THIS sub-section (2) of Section; 10 does not refer to car or jeep. The transport vehicle was inserted in this clause (c) sub-section (2) of Section 10 with effect from 14/11/1994. Consequently, on the date of accident, i. e. , on 10/11/1994 the vehicle could not be classified as a transport vehicle.

( 6 ) IN the aforesaid light, it is required to be seen whether the motor car/jeep would include a vehicle Tata 407.

( 7 ) SUB-SECTION (25) of Section 2 of the Act defines motorcab to mean "any motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry not more than 6 passengers excluding driver for hire or reward. " Since it is not the case of the respondents that passengers were being carried and seeing the nature of the vehicle it is evident that it could only be used for the purpose of transporting goods. The Vehicle would not be covered within the definition of motorcab. The term "jeep" has not been defined. In this context when permission is granted to drive a car and jeep, it is required to be seen under which category the licence could have been granted Within the meaning of Section 10.

( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for respondent No. 1 submits that there had been legislative changes in the Motor Vehicles Act and earlier three was no definition of Light transport Vehicle. The category of transport vehicle has been inserted with effect from 14/11/1994 while the date of accident is 10/11/1994. Consequently, at that time any licence which was meant for that motor car or jeep was meant to drive Light Motor Vehicle and as such, it was sufficient to drive a tempo, for there was no specific classification for transport vehicle.

( 9 ) COMING to the question of light motor vehicle, sub-section (21) of Section 2 defines light motor vehicle before amendment to mean "a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road-roller the unladen weight or any of which does not exceed 6000 Kilograms. " So, the car as well as jeep would fall in the category of LMV only. In absence of any categorisation in LMV between passenger and transport vehicle on 10/1