CHANDRASHEKARAIAH, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 21-9-1994 passed in Motor vehicle Case No. 2186 of 1989 on the file of Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Bangalore. ( 2 ) THE legal representatives of one Sri S. Y. Lakshminarayana Reddy, filed a claim petition before the Accidents Claims tribunal in respect of the death of above said Sri S. Y. Lakshminarayana Reddy in the accident occurred on 9-8-1989. The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence, awarded the compensation of Rs. 1,61,000/- with current interest at 6% p. a. Aggrieved by the said award, the Insurance Company filed this appeal, contending that the driver of the lorry who drew the vehicle on the date of the accident had a licence only to drive light motor vehicle and he had no licence to drive heavy motor vehicle i. e. , lorry (heavy goods vehicle ). The contension of the appellant that as the driver was not authorised to drive the vehicle involved in the accident, the appellant-Insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured. In support of this contention, the Counsel for the appellant had brought to my notice Exhibit D-1 which is a History Sheet of Driving Licence of the driver of the lorry. The perusal of Exhibit D-1 shows that the driver was authorised to drive light motor vehicle only for the period from 5-8-1978 to 4-8-1981. The driving licence again reissued from 14-9-1981 to 13-9-1984. Thereafter under the heading M 2/169/82 it is endorsed to authorise to drive transport vehicle and also issued paper page No. 178 of 1982 with effect from 12-2-1982. Again it is reissued from 5-2-1986 to 4-2-1989. The date of accident is on 9-8-1989. Now it is to be examined whether as on 9-8-1989 which is the date of accident, the driver of the vehicle had a licence to drive heavy goods vehicle in order to ascertain whether there is any liability on the Insurance company to indemnify the insured. ( 3 ) SRI Sowri Raju, learned Counsel for the appellant contended that Exhibit D-1 shows that the driver had the licence to drive only Light Motor Vehicle and not Heavy Motor Vehicle on the ground even though the driver was authorised to drive transport vehicle, it cannot be treated that he was authorised to drive heavy goods transport vehicle. ( 3 ) SRI Sowri Raju, learned Counsel for the appellant contended that Exhibit D-1 shows that the driver had the licence to drive only Light Motor Vehicle and not Heavy Motor Vehicle on the ground even though the driver was authorised to drive transport vehicle, it cannot be treated that he was authorised to drive heavy goods transport vehicle. In support of this contention, he relied upon Section 2 (21), Section 2 (47), Section 3 and Section 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Section 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 reads as follows:"10. Form and contents of licences to drive. (1) every learner's licence and driving licence, except a driving licence issued under Section 18, shall be in such form and shall contain such information as may be prescribed by the central Government. (2) A learner's licence or, as the case may be, driving licence shall also be expressed as entitling the holder to drive a motor vehicle of one or more of the following classes, namely: (a) motor cycle without gear; (b) motor cycle with gear; (c) invalid carriage; (d) light motor vehicle; (e) medium goods vehicle; (0 medium passenger motor vehicle; (g) heavy goods vehicle; (h) heavy passenger motor vehicle; (i) road-roller; (j) motor vehicle of specified description". Section 3 reads as follows:"3. Necessity for driving licence. (1) 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 (other than a motor cab hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under sub-section (2) of section 75) unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do. (2) The conditions subject to which sub-section (1) shall not apply to a person receiving instructions in driving a motor vehicle shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central government". ( 4 ) SECTION 2 (47) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, defines "transport vehicle" as a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle. ( 4 ) SECTION 2 (47) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, defines "transport vehicle" as a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle. ( 5 ) IN order to consider that the driver had the licence to drive heavy goods vehicle or not, it is to be seen that the lorry which is involved in the accident, comes within the definition of the transport vehicle as defined under the Act. As per Exhibit D-1, on the date of the accident, he was authorised to drive transport vehicles. Under Section 3 of the Act, no person shall so drive a transport vehicle unless his driving licence specifically entitles him to do so. Goods carriage is also a transport vehicle as defined under Section 2 (47) of the Act. So, the lorry involved in the accident is a goods carriage and comes within the definition of 'transport vehicle'. Therefore, the driver of the vehicle was authorised to drive a transport vehicle i. e. , the goods carriage, on the date of the accident. Hence, the contention of the Insurance company-appellant that the driver had no valid licence to drive the transport vehicle cannot be accepted. ( 6 ) ANOTHER reason to reject the contention of the appellant is that Section 2 (21) of the Act defines "light Motor Vehicle" as 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 7,500 kgs. ". The unladen weight of the lorry involved in this accident is less than 7,500 kgs. as per Exhibit D-6. Admittedly, the driver was having a driving licence to drive light motor vehicle. The unladen weight of the vehicle involved in the accident is less than 7,500 kgs. and therefore it is Light Motor Transport Vehicle. In view of this evidence, it cannot be said that the driver had no driving licence authorised to drive the vehicle involved in the accident. ( 7 ) THE Counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that asper the policy, the liability of the Insurance Company is only up to Rs. 1,50,000/- and therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify only to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000/ -. The Tribunal has fixed the liability of the entire amount of compensation of rs. ( 7 ) THE Counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that asper the policy, the liability of the Insurance Company is only up to Rs. 1,50,000/- and therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify only to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000/ -. The Tribunal has fixed the liability of the entire amount of compensation of rs. 1,61,000/- on the owner and also on the Insurance Company. This contention deserve to be accepted. As per the policy, the liability of the Insurance Company is only up to Rs. 1,50,000/- and not beyond. Therefore, to that extent the award of the tribunal is required to be modified. ( 8 ) HENCE, for the reasons stated above, I pass the following order: the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is partly allowed with a modification that the liability of the Insurance Company is only Rs. 1,50,000/- with interest at 6% p. a. from the date of petition till the date of payment. The remaining amount has to be paid by the owner at the rate of 6% from the date of petition till the date of payment. Parties to bear their own costs. --- *** --- .