Singh, C.J. -(Oral) -- This appeal is directed against the award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Tikamgarh, in Claim Case No. 50/98, dated 28.8.2000.

Smt. Kusumlata is the owner of bus No. UP-93-C/0570. This vehicle collided with a tractor resulting in injuries to Mohandas (20) son of Lalaram and Smt. Ladkunwar. It was insured with the United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Civil Lines, Jhansi. The accident took place on 18.6.1998 at about 9.30 p.m., After sustaining injuries in this accident, Mohandas was shifted to hospital where he died 15-20 days later. Allegation is that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver Karansingh. Respondents stated that without impleading the owner and driver of the tractor, application was not maintainable, since they were also responsible for the accident. Insurance Company stated that the driver did· not possess licence for driving passenger vehicle, therefore, was not liable to pay the compensation.

Claims Tribunal framed three issues in the case, permitted the parties' to lead evidence and proceeded to hold that the accident took place as alleged. In this accident, Mohandas suffered injuries and died. With regard to the allegation of appellant that driver and owner of the tractor are not, parties to the case, conclusion on evidence is that it was not necessary to do so since it was the ·bus which struck against the stationary tractor.

Ultimately, compensation of Rs. 1,92,000.00/- carrying interest at the rate of 12% per annum has been awarded, apart from Rs. 250.00 towards counsel's fee.

Dissatisfied with the award, this appeal is at the instance of owner of the vehicle, since liability to pay compensation has been fastened on her.

Shri Subodh Pandey contends that liability to pay compensation is of the Insurance Company and not of the owner, since the vehicle was insured· with it. Reliance is placed on three decisions, namely, 1999(6) SCC 620 (Ashok Gangadhar Maratha v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.), MPLJ 200(3) 469 (New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Munnibai and others) and 2001 (1) MPHT 139 (Smt. Savitri Devi and others v. Naresh Kumar Harikrishna Madhwani and others). Precisely, the submission is that driver Karansingh possessed driving licence for driving 'heavy goods vehicle' therefore, he could competently drive 'heavy passenger Motor Vehicle' also, since they have equal unladen weight exceeding 12,000 kg. u/s 2(16) and (17) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, (for short, the Act).

Shri Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for United India Insurance Co. Ltd. contends that the driver should have endorsement-authorisation to drive 'public service vehicle' u/s 2(35) of the Act. Since he did not possess such a licence, it could not be said that he possessed valid and effective driving licence to drive this vehicle.

Diving serious consideration to the submissions advanced for consideration by 'learned counsel for parties, we find that fundamental difference is between 'heavy passenger motor vehicle' and 'heavy goods vehicle' and weight of both kinds of vehicles exceeds 12,000 kg., distinction being the nature of use and either of the vehicles can be adopted for use to which they' may be put. 'Transport Vehicle' defined u/s 2(47) of the Act means a public service vehicle, goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle. It falls under both sub-sections (16) and (17) of section 2 of the Act, read with section 3 under Chapter II, providing for licensing of drivers of motor vehicles. Section 3 provides that no person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorising him to drive the vehicle and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle. Unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do. We have noticed transport vehicle includes both kinds of vehicles, namely 'heavy goods vehicle' and 'heavy passenger m