This appeal is directed against the award dated 6.2.1996 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Jabalpur in Motor Vehicle Case No. 49 of 1995. Accident took place on 5.6.1990 at 9.00 p.m. when Tempo No. URQ 1425 coming from Barela side at high speed cummitted the accident resulting in the death of deceased Kaloo Singh Yadav whose legal heirs are the claimants in this case. Allegation is that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver otherwise it could nut have taken place. The case has been opposed by the other side. The Insurance Company alleges that it was not informed about the accident. Driver did not possess driving licence. Vehicle (tempo) could not be used for transport of passengers without endorsement from the Regional Transport Authority. Therefore the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. The Tribunal has accepted the taking place of the accident as alleged by the claimants and has come to tile conclusion that the vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently resulting ill the accident and death of the deceased. It was also found that the claimants are legal heir, of the deceased, therefore they are entitled to compensation. Against claim of Rs. 6,50,000.00. award for Rs. 2,84.000.00 has been made carrying interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application till payment. The present appeal is at the instance Insurance Company Memorandum of appeal disclose that the award has been challenged on various grounds, some of them relate to payment of interest at higher rate use of wrong multiplier and non-resort to section 149 (2)(a)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1988. There is objection with respect to non-endorsement of the vehicle for use as-transport vehicle.’ In the absence of permission from Claims Tribunal under section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 the defence of Insurance Company is confined to the grounds under section 149 (2). In this background, the only objection which survives for consideration is that the vehicle was not suitable for transport or passengers in the absence of endorsement required under the rules made under the Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 in terms of Insurance Policy to that effect. We are not impressed by the submission advanced by the learned counsel for Insurance Company. In this background, the only objection which survives for consideration is that the vehicle was not suitable for transport or passengers in the absence of endorsement required under the rules made under the Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 in terms of Insurance Policy to that effect. We are not impressed by the submission advanced by the learned counsel for Insurance Company. It has been held in decision announced by this Court that vehicle in question is 'light motor vehicle' as defined in section 2 (21) of the Act. This provision defines 'light motor vehicle' means 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 kilograms. 'Transport Vehicle' is defined under section 2 (47) of the Act to mean a public service vehicle a goods carriage an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle. The definition of 'transport vehicle' under section 2 (47) is to be read with 'light motor vehicle' as defined under section 2 (21), The vehicle in question falls within the definition of 'light motor vehicle' and, therefore, 'transport vehicle', which includes a public service vehicle for which purpose the vehicle in this case was being used is a light motor vehicle. This definition cannot be stiffened by the formula of endorsement that the vehicle could not be used for transport or passengers since the determination hereinabove qualifies 'light motor vehicle' for use as transport vehicle or for carrying passengers. Therefore we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this appeal. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed being without merit. Costs on parties.