The central legal point established in the judgment is that the insurer must prove willful breach of insurance policy conditions by the owner to avoid liability, and mere absence or invalidity of the driver's license is not sufficient.

Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.

This appeal is directed against the award, dated 21st January, 2012, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Una, District Una, H.P., (for short, the Tribunal), whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.2,69,000/-, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization and costs to the tune of Rs.1,000/-, came to be awarded in favour of the claimants, and the insurer was saddled with the liability, with right of recovery, (for short, the impugned award).

2. The claimants, the driver and the insurer have not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus, the same has attained finality so far as it relates to them.

3. Feeling aggrieved, the owner/insured has challenged the impugned award by way of instant appeal, on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the record, I am of the considered view that the Tribunal has fallen into an error in exonerating the insurer from its liability, for the reasons mentioned hereinbelow.

5. The vehicle involved in the accident was Tractor bearing No.HP-19A-8254. Registration certificate of the offending tractor has been proved on record as Ext.R-1 and the goods carriage permit is Ext.RY. The Registration Certificate and Goods/contract carriage permit (Exts.R-1 and RY, respectively), show that the unladen and laden weight of the offending vehicle was 2065 Kg. and 3065 Kg., respectively. Thus, the offending vehicle, in terms of Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, (for short, the Act), which is reproduced hereinbelow, comes under the definition of “light motor vehicle”.

“2. ………………… ……………….

(21) “light motor vehicle” means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either or which or a motor car or tractor or road-roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed 7,500 kilograms.”

6. The above provision clearly shows that the vehicle, with unladen weight not exceeding 7,500 kilograms, would fall within the definition of “light motor vehicle”.

7. This Court in a catena of judgments has held that the tractor-trolley falls within the definition of light motor vehicle. Latest decision on the similar principle is in FAO No.396 of 2010, titled Rajiv Kumar @ Raju vs. Raksha Devi and others, decided on 23rd September, 2016. It is apt to reproduce paragraphs 4 to 9 of the said decision hereunder:-

“4. The offending vehicle was a tractor-trolley and the driver was having licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle. The Tribunal has held that the driver was not having a valid driving licence. It is apt to reproduce para 25 of the impugned award herein.

“25. Section 2 (26) of the Act defines the word ‘motor car’. The tractor does not fall within the definition of a ‘motor car’. This clearly indicates that the respondent No. 2 was not having a valid driving licence to drive the tractor trolley. Otherwise too, the same was not being used for agricultural purposes or any purpose subservient to agriculture at the material time. Therefore, it can be safely said that neither the respondent No. 2 was holding a valid and effective licence to drive the tractor trolley nor the same was being used in consonance with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. In view of these reasons, the insurance company (respondent No.3) is not liable to indemnify the owner/insured (respondent No.1) (The Oriental Insurance Company Limited versus Vidya Devi and others, 2009 (1) Shim.LC 99. relied upon).”

5. The learned Tribunal has lost sight of Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, for short “the Act”, which reads as under:-

“2 (21) "light motor vehicle" means 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 of any of which, does not exceed 2 [7500] kilograms;”

6. Thus, it does include tractor.

7. This Court in FAO No. 187 of 2010, titled as Baldev Singh versus Jagdish Chan