Judgment :- 1. 3rd respondent in MCOP 587/91 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Coimbatore, is the appellant. 2. The claim petition was filed by the respondents 1 to 4 herein who are the widow and son and also the parents of the deceased. They claimed a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs under various heads. The accident happened while the deceased was supervising, helping and loading the trailer into the sand from the land belonging to a stranger. While he was travelling in the tractor, the 5th respondent was driving the tractor in a rash and negligent manner as a result of which the deceased fell down from the tractor and the same ran over him. It was alleged that the accident was due to the careless, rash and negligent driving of the 5th respondent-driver in the course of employment. 3. It was alleged that the deceased was earning sum of Rs. 2500/- and that he was only 25 years at the time of his death. 4. In the counter statement, the appellant herein contended that the driver of the tractor did not have valid driving licence on the date of the accident, 5th respondent was authorised only to drive two wheeler and not the tractor, and therefore, not liable to pay compensation. 5. Taking into consideration the entire evidence adduced before the Tribunal, it found that the accident happened due to the negligence of the 5th respondent and awarded a sum of Rs. 1,90,600/-. That part of the award which was not challenged in the appeal by the Insurance Company which is the 3rd respondent. 6. The only contention that is taken in the memorandum of appeal and at the time of arguments was that the driver had only a licence to drive light motor vehicles and the tractor-cum-trailer will not come in the category and therefore the 5th respondent was not having a licence to drive the same. The nexus of the contention is since the driver did not have a licence to drive the tractor-cum-trailer that is a breach of the condition of the policy and therefore, it should be exonerated. 7. I do not think such a contention deserves consideration. The nexus of the contention is since the driver did not have a licence to drive the tractor-cum-trailer that is a breach of the condition of the policy and therefore, it should be exonerated. 7. I do not think such a contention deserves consideration. In view of the certain legal decisions new settled by this Court as well as the Supreme Court, the insurance company cannot be absolved from its liability unless the court feels that there was intentional breach of the policy. It is also settled by this Court that a tractor-cum-trailer also comes within the definition of medium motor vehicle. It is also settled by this Court that when a person is having a driving licence, the court should not lightly brush aside the same, on the allegation that the vehicle which was driven by him was not intended for the purpose. 8. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, one thing is clear, that the driver was having a licence to drive a light motor vehicle and motor cycles. It is not a case where the person is not having any licence at all. In the decision by a Division Bench of this Court reported in 1987 ACJ 833 ( New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Subbu (Minor) and others ) a similar question came up for consideration. The contention was tractor-and trailor are two different types of vehicles and if a trailor is drawn by a tractor, it will be a heavy vehicle and therefore, insurance company will be absolved. 9. In the decision cited, their Lordships after taking into consideration the various definitions under the Motor Vehicles Act, held that if a tractor draws a trailer it will not be heavy goods vehicle. In paragraph 6 of the judgment at page 834 is answer for the contention of the Counsel for the appellant. “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 section 2 (13) of the Act, and that it would come with the meaning of a ‘medium goods vehicle’ in clause (14) of section 2. “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 section 2 (13) of the Act, and that it would come with the meaning of a ‘medium goods vehicle’ in clause (14) of section 2. Clause (13) of section 2 of the Act defines ‘light motor vehicle’ thus: “Light motor vehicle’ means a transport vehicle or omnibus the registered laden weight of which, or a motor car or tractor the unladen weight of which, does not exceed 4,000 kg”. The tractor in this case weighs only 1780 kg and, therefore, it can be brought under clause (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 4,120 kg. and if both are taken into account, the total unladen weight will come to 5900 kg 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 Section 2 of the Act, a tractor ‘the unladen weight of which does not exceed 4000 kg’ would include the weight of the trailer also. Tractor is defined in clause (30) of Section 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 does not exceed 16000 pounds avoirdupois’ were omitted from the definition of ‘tractor’ in clause (30) of Section 2 of the A ct. 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 side car drawn or intended to be drawn by a motor vehicle. Thus, the tractor is a motor vehicle that draws a trailer. “Trailer’ is separately defined as meaning any vehicle other than a side car drawn or intended to be drawn by a motor vehicle. Thus, the tractor is a motor vehicle that draws a trailer. But by that reason, the definition of tractor would not include the trailer as well, as 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 was the view taken by the learned single Judge of this Court with which we agree. The appeal accordingly fails and it is dismissed”. I think that decision alone is sufficient to discard the argument of the counsel for the appellant. 10. In another decision of this Court reported in 1992 ACJ 84 ( Dhanaraj and another v. Rubia and another ), the Division Bench has held that if a person is having a driving licence, the insurance company cannot get himself absolved from the liability. The insurance company has no case that the 5th respondent is disqualified from holding or obtaining a licence. The insurance company cannot therefore escape the liability. That will be sufficient to fix the insurance company with liability. In the second decision cited, their Lordships said. “The words “holds a driving licence at the time of the accident” is definitely satisfied in this case because the driver of TMV 8481 did have a licence to drive a light motor vehicle. In the judgment quoted above, it is seen that as against the word ‘driver’, it was stated that the vehicle could be driven by the insured or by any other person in his employ holding a licence to drive the vehicle. The reference to the vehicle is missing in the policy before us. Further, the words “or had held a permanent driving licence (other than a learners licence) and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence” suggest that even if the driver had a permanent driving licence and is subsequently not disqualified from holding such a licence, the insurance company cannot escape liability. Further, the words “or had held a permanent driving licence (other than a learners licence) and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence” suggest that even if the driver had a permanent driving licence and is subsequently not disqualified from holding such a licence, the insurance company cannot escape liability. The words seem to suggest that even if on the date of the accident, the driver did not have a licence the fact that he had earlier a permanent licence and is not disqualified on the date of the accident is sufficient to fasten the liability on the insurance company. Learned counsel for the appellants relied on Rule 5(b) of the Motor Vehicles Rules to say that the eligibility for getting a licence to drive a tourist vehicle is only one year experience as a driver. 6. Therefore, on facts, we are on the opinion that the judgment in E. Enjanadevi v. Arumugham, 1983 ACJ 625 (Madras) will not apply to the present case. To the same effect is the judgment in Canara Motor and General Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Abdul Hamid Khan Saheb 1984 ACJ 467 (Bombay). In that case, it was no doubt held that the words “held a licence to drive the motor vehicle” appearing in the policy refers more to the type of vehicle rather then the mode of its user. There is thus difference of opinion between our Court and the Bombay High Court in this aspect. We do not propose to go into the question as to which view is acceptable because in this case on facts we are satisfied that the policy does not insist on the driver having a licence to drive a tourist taxi. However, we may refer to Houghton v. Trafalgar Insurance Co. Ltd. , (1954) 1 QB 247. In that case, it has been held that if there is ambiguity in the policy documents, the ambiguity will be resolved in favour of the insured”. 11. In view of the said two decisions, I do not find any merit in this appeal. No arguments are put forward regarding the quantum. The appeal is therefore, dismissed; however without any order as to costs.