Mr. M. Jeyapaul, J.: - The owner and the driver of the offending vehicle, namely, tractor-trailer have preferred the present appeal aggrieved by the right of recovery given to the insurance company on the ground that the driver did not possess a valid driving licence to drive the said vehicle.

2. Claimant who is the father of the deceased Charanjit Singh has contended in the claim petition that his son proceeded on a motor-cycle from Dera Bassi towards village Natwal taking Munish Kumar as pillionrider. Jagtar Singh @ Jagga and Baljinder Singh @ Gudda followed them by a separate motor-cycle. When they reached near Chandigarh Apartments on Barwala road, a tractor-trailer bearing registration No. PB-42-6684 came from the opposite direction driven by its driver Balwant Singh in a rash and negligent manner and struck against the motor-cycle of Charanjit Singh and as a result of which Charanjit Singh and Munish Kumar fell down on the road having received grievous injuries. Charanjit Singh died on the spot whereas Munish Kumar died on the way to Dera Bassi. It has been alleged that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the 1st respondent.

3. The 2nd respondent-insurance company filed written statement alleging that the tractor bearing registration No. PB-42-6684 was used against the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The driver of the said vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the alleged accident. Having further alleged that the involvement of the said vehicle was emphatically denied and the amount claimed was highly excessive and exaggerated, the insurance company sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

4. The Tribunal held that the driver of the offending vehicle, namely, tractor-trailer was not holding a valid driving licence. It made an observation that though he possessed a driving licence to drive light motor vehicle, he had not possessed any driving licence to drive tractor-trailer as it fell under the category of heavy motor vehicle. The Tribunal ultimately held the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle liable to pay compensation but directed the insurance company to pay compensation first in point of time, conferring a right of recovery on the insurance company.

5. The short point that arises for consideration in the present appeal is whether the driver of the tractor-trailer who possessed admittedly a driving licence to drive light motor vehicle, got a valid driving licence to drive the tractor-trailer.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants, namely, driver and owner of the offending vehicle, would vehemently submit drawing the attention of this Court to the definition found in Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, that the driver of the vehicle who possessed a licence to drive light motor vehicle was authorized to drive a tractor-trailer being a transport vehicle, the gross weight whereof was less than 7500 kgs. It is his further submission that the very fact that the licence was granted only for a period of three years and the same was got renewed further for a period of three years covering the date of accident, would go to establish that the licence was granted to drive only transport vehicle. Therefore, it is his submission that the Tribunal wrongly made an observation that the tractortrailer does not fall under the definition of “light motor vehicle”.

7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-insurance company would submit referring to the very same provision, namely, Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, that the offending vehicle, namely, tractor-trailer was used as a carriage vehicle and the gross vehicle weight definitely would have exceeded 7500 kgs. and therefore, it would fall under the category of heavy goods vehicle as defined in Section 2(16) of the said Act. Inasmuch as the driver of the offending vehicle did not have any driving licence to drive any hea