Judgement V. RAMASWAMI, J. :- In respect of an accident that took place on 27-9-1982 the respondents-claimants filed a petition under S.110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) claiming Compensation for the death off one Rasiah Nadar alias Raja. 2. The only point that is urged in this appeal is that the driver of the vehicle has no driving licence to drive the vehicle and that therefore the Insurance Company is absolved of its liability to pay any compensation. The Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Madras, by its order dt. 31-1-1885 in O. P. 17 of 1983, held that the driver had a driving licence, that it has not been shown that the vehicle in question is a medium goods vehicle and that the Insurance Company has also failed to establish that the driver had no valid licence for driving the vehicle which was involved in the accident. 3. On appeal, a learned single Judge of this Court held that the driver had a licence and that the tractor in question could not be held to be a medium goods vehicle. In that view, he confirmed the order of the Tribunal and dismissed the appeal. 4. It is seen from the records that at the time of the accident, the driver had a licence. The police who were investigating into the matter required the production of the licence and the driver produced the licence and, it was with the police. During the trial, the driver produced a xerox copy of the driving licence and wanted to mark the same as evidence in the case. But on the objections of the Insurance Company, he was not permitted to mark the same, It is in those circumstances, both the Tribunal and the learned Judge who heard the appeal held that the Insurance Company could not take up the stand that the driver had no licence and that in those circumstances the Insurance Company has failed to prove that the driver had no licence. However, the Tribunal and the learned Judge also went into the question whether the tractor which was involved in this case is a light motor vehicle or medium goods vehicle. However, the Tribunal and the learned Judge also went into the question whether the tractor which was involved in this case is a light motor vehicle or medium goods vehicle. "This question was considered on the assumption that the Insurance Company was right in their contention that the driver had only a licence for driving a light motor vehicle and not a medium goods vehicle. The Tribunal held that the unladen weight of the tractor was 1780 kgs. and that the unladen weight of a trailer was 4120 kgs. and that therefore it could not be stated that it is a heavy motor vehicle and that it is a light motor vehicle on the ground that all vehicles which are not heavy motor vehicles are light motor vehicles. 5. The learned single Judge of this Court, however, on appeal did not rest his decision on the question whether it is heavy or light, but also went into the question whether it should be considered as medium goods vehicle. After referring to the definitions in Motor Vehicles Act, the learned Judge held that the tractor is not a medium goods vehicle. 6. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that a tractor with the trailer does not come within the definition of a 'light motor vehicle' in S.2(13) of the Act; and that it would come within the meaning of a 'medium goods vehicle' in clause (14) of S.2. Cl. (13) of S.2 of the Act defines 'light motor vehicle' thus - 'Light motor vehicle' means of transport vehicle or omnibus the registered laden weight of which, or a motor car or tractor the unladen weight of which, dues not exceed 4000 kgs." The tractor in this case weighs only 1780 Kgs. and therefore it can be brought under Cl. (13). But the learned counsel for the appellant states that the weight of the vehicle should be with reference to the trailer also, the unladen weight of which is 4120 and if both are taken into account, the total unladen weight will come to 5900 Kgs. and therefore it cannot be stated as a light motor vehicle. We are unable to agree with the learned Counsel that for the purpose of clause (13) of S.2 of the Act, a tractor the unladen weight of which dues not exceed 4000 kgs. would include the weight of the trailer also. and therefore it cannot be stated as a light motor vehicle. We are unable to agree with the learned Counsel that for the purpose of clause (13) of S.2 of the Act, a tractor the unladen weight of which dues not exceed 4000 kgs. would include the weight of the trailer also. 'Tractor' is defined in Cl. (30), of S.2 of the Act as meaning a motor vehicle which is not itself constructed to carry any load (other than equipment used for the purpose of propulsion) but excludes a road roller. It may be seen that by an Amending Act 100 of 1956, the words 'the unladen weight of which dues not exceed 16000 pounds avoirdupois' were entitled from the definition of 'tractor in cl. (30) of Sec. 2 of the Act. Though these words are omitted, it is significant that the unladen weight of a 'tractor' is not defined as including the weight of an unladen trailer also. 'Trailer' is separately defined as meaning any vehicle other than a sidecar drawn or intended to be drawn by a motor vehicle. Thus, the tractor is a motor vehicle that draws a trailor. But by that reason, the definition of a tractor would not include the trailer as well. If the tractor will have to be considered independent of the trailer for the purpose of finding out whether it is a light motor vehicle or medium goods vehicle, then there could be no doubt that the tractor is a light motor vehicle and not a medium goods vehicle. That was the view taken by the learned single Judge of this Court with which we agree. The appeal accordingly fails and it is dismissed.