Mr. Darshan Singh, J.:- The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant- Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (respondent No.3 in the claim petition) against the award dated 02.04.2010, passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Narnaul (hereinafter called the ‘Tribunal’), vide which respondents No.1 & 2-claimants have been awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.4,18,000/- on account of death of Mohar Singh in the motor vehicular accident which took place on 04.12.2008.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company contended that respondent No.3, the driver of the tempo, was having the driving licence for LMV non-transport vehicle, but he was driving the tempo in question which is a commercial/transport vehicle. He was required to possess the driving licence to drive the transport vehicle. Thus, he contended that as respondent No.3 was not authorised to drive the transport vehicle, so the insured has committed the violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy by handing over the vehicle to respondent No.3 who was not having the driving licence for the transport vehicle. Thus, he contended that the appellant-Insurance Company cannot be made liable for payment of the amount of compensation.

3. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 & 2 contended that the Court may pass the appropriate order in accordance of law.

4. I have duly considered the aforesaid contentions.

5. Before proceeding further to discuss the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant on merits, it is pertinent to mention that respondents No.3 & 4 the driver and owner, respectively, of the vehicle concerned have not appeared despite service and were proceeded against ex parte by the Coordinate Bench vide order dated 13.03.2014.

6. The only issue raised by learned counsel for the appellant- Insurance Company is that respondent No.3 was driving the commercial/transport vehicle i.e. tempo bearing registration No.HR-12PA- 0513, which was insured as the passenger carrying vehicle. Respondent No.3 was not having any licence to drive the transport vehicle. So, the Insurance Company is not liable.

7. Ex.RW2/D is the copy of the driving licence of respondent No.3. He was authorised to drive the motorcycle with gear and LMV nontransport vehicle. His licence was issued by the Licensing Authority, Narnaul. Thus, it is evident that the driving licence of respondent No.3 was only for LMV non-transport vehicle, but he was driving the passenger carrying three-wheeler. The copy of the insurance policy Ex.R4 shows that the tempo in question was insured as a passenger carrying three-wheeler. So, the vehicle in question was insured as a commercial/transport vehicle.

8. As per Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the ‘Act’) a specific authorisation is required to drive the transport vehicle. The approach of the learned Tribunal was erroneous, as he has considered the tempo in question to be the non-transport vehicle simply on the ground that in the registration certificate, the said vehicle has been registered as a light motor vehicle. Light motor vehicle is the classification of the vehicle. Even a transport vehicle can be the light motor vehicle. The registration certificate Ex.PX shows that the three-wheeler in question has been registered by the Registering Authority-cum-Secretary R.T.A., Rohtak. The Secretary R.T.A. deals only with the transport vehicles. As already mentioned the vehicle in question has already been insured as a passenger carrying vehicle, so certainly the vehicle in question was a transport vehicle.

9. Ex.RW2/D is the copy of driving licence of respondent No.3 Dharampal which is only for LMV-non transport. In case New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Parbhu Lal 2008 (1) RCR (Civil) 198, the driver was holding the licence to ply the light motor vehicle but he was driving the transport vehicle, which met with an accident. The Hon’ble Apex Court laid down that a person holding licence to ply