Judgment :- B. AKBAR BASHA KHADIRI, J. The insurer has come forward with this instant C.M.A. against the order passed in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 1 of 1992 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub-Court), Ambasamudram. This C.M.A. has arisen in this way : One Gangai, who was aged 15 years, died in a motor vehicle accident. His parents Paramasiva Moopanar and Saraswathi, instituted claim proceedings in M.C.O.P. No. 1 of 1992 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub-Court), Ambasamudram, claiming Rs. 2, 00, 000 from the owner and the insurer. According to the claimants, on July 1, 1992, at 11 a.m. the deceased was working as a load man with the owner and in the course of his employment, he was travelling in the minilorry bearing Registration No. CTD 9432 accompanying the goods carried in the minilorry. While the minilorry was passing along Kallidaikurichi-Pottal Road, at Karambai, due to rash and negligent driving of the owner-cum-driver of the minilorry, the minilorry hit against an electrical post and capsized, as a result of which, Gangai sustained injuries and died. According to his parents Gangai was earning Rs. 750 per month. They claimed Rs. 2, 00, 000 as compensation for the death of Gangai. In his counter, the first respondent before the Tribunal admitted that Gangai was employed as coolie and while he was travelling in the minilorry in the course of his employment, the minilorry met with an accident, but the accident had not contributed to the death of Gangai and Gangai died due to his own fault. The first respondent before the Tribunal has also contended that as a coolie, Gangai was earning Rs. 20 per day and he would have been earning for fifteen days for a month and that the claim is excessive.The second respondent before the Tribunal filed counter in which it generally denied the negligence and disputed the age and earning of the deceased and also the quantum claimed. In the counter, the second respondent before the Tribunal had also stated that Gangai was not a coolie or a cleaner employed by the first respondent before the Tribunal, but a third party passenger. In the counter, the second respondent before the Tribunal had also stated that Gangai was not a coolie or a cleaner employed by the first respondent before the Tribunal, but a third party passenger. In the additional counter, the insurer had claimed that the driver of the vehicle possessed a licence to drive light motor vehicle and he was not possessed of a licence to drive a heavy vehicle, and as such there is violation of the condition mentioned in the insurance policy, and therefore, the insurer is not liable. The Tribunal, after enquiry, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent, owner-cum-driver of the minilorry, as a result of which Gangai died. The Tribunal also came to the conclusion that Gangai was not a third party passenger, but he was travelling in the vehicle in the course of his employment, and therefore, the insurer is liable to pay compensation. The Tribunal also held that the licence possessed by the first respondent before the Tribunal complies with the requirement of the policy conditions and as such the insurer is liable to pay the compensation. The Tribunal assessed the compensation at Rs. 90, 700 and directed the second respondent-insurer to pay the compensation. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the Tribunal, the insurer has come forward with the instant CMA. The two points that are pressed before me in this C.M.A. are : (1) the deceased was an unauthorised passenger travelling in the goods vehicle; and (2) the driver of the vehicle was not possessed of the essential licence to drive heavy vehicle and therefore, there is breach of policy condition.Heard both the sides. It is not in dispute that Gangai died in a road accident involving the vehicle which belonged to the third respondent herein, who also happens to be the driver of the vehicle. The Tribunal has held that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the third respondent herein. As against this finding the third respondent herein has not preferred any appeal. The only point raised by the insurer is that Gangai was a third party passenger in the goods vehicle, and therefore, the insurer is not liable to pay the compensation. Exhibit R-4 is the insurance policy. As against this finding the third respondent herein has not preferred any appeal. The only point raised by the insurer is that Gangai was a third party passenger in the goods vehicle, and therefore, the insurer is not liable to pay the compensation. Exhibit R-4 is the insurance policy. The relevant restrictions in this regard in the policy are : Limitations as to use : (1) Use of organised racing pace-making reliability trial or speed testing. (2) Use whilst drawing a trailer except the towing (other than for reward) of any, one disabled mechanically propelled vehicle. (3) Use for carrying passengers in the vehicle except employees (other than the driver) not exceeding six in number coming under the purview of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The word "passenger" is not defined in the Motor Vehicles Act. Merriam Webster's Collegiatle Dictionary 10th edition gives the following meaning for a passenger : Passenger - A traveller in a public car or private conveyance. The Universal English Dictionary defines the word "passenger" as under : Passenger - A person travelling in public conveyance by rail, road or esp. sea. In Cheriya Mohammed v. Kamsakutty 1992 ACJ 782, a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court has held that the owner of the goods, who was travelling in the goods vehicle along with his goods is a passenger. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Philomina Mathew, the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court has held that a cleaner employed by the owner is a passenger being carried in a bus in pursuance of the contract of employment. In that case, the cleaner fell down from the top of a stationary bus and died while preparing it to be fit for use.In Har Kaur v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 1993 ACJ 1193 a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that persons travelling along with the goods in the course of the employment by the owner of the truck are passengers who are covered by the insurance policy. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 1993 ACJ 1193 a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that persons travelling along with the goods in the course of the employment by the owner of the truck are passengers who are covered by the insurance policy. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nachimuthu 1997 1 LW 426 , my learned brother S. Jagadeesan J., has held that a person travelling in the van and employed as a coolie in connection with loading and unloading of goods, dying in the accident due to collision of the van with a lorry, is a person employed in connection with the operation and/or loading/and unloading of goods in the motor vehicle and, therefore, the liability of the insurance company is attracted. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as per the policy condition, only a driver, and the cleaner can be accommodated in the cabin of the vehicle and the deceased having travelled as an extra person, his life risk is not covered under the policy. Reference to clause 3 of the policy would go to show that use for carrying passengers in the vehicle except employees (other than the driver) not exceeding six in number coming under the purview of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, up to six members, is covered under the policy. In the instant case, P.W.-1 and R.W.-1 have clearly stated that the deceased was employed as a coolie in the minilorry at the time when it met with the accident. The appellant herein as the second respondent before the Tribunal has not let in any satisfactory evidence to rebut the versions of P.W.-1 and R.W.-1. It would thus be evident that the deceased was travelling in the vehicle in the course of his employment and as such his life risk is covered by the policy. This is not the case of the appellant that more than six persons were travelling in the vehicle at the time of the accident. I am of the view that the Tribunal has rightly held that the appellant herein is liable to pay compensation to the claimants.The next point urged is that the third respondent herein, who is the driver-cum-owner of the minilorry was not possessed of an effective licence for driving the vehicle in question at the time of the accident. I am of the view that the Tribunal has rightly held that the appellant herein is liable to pay compensation to the claimants.The next point urged is that the third respondent herein, who is the driver-cum-owner of the minilorry was not possessed of an effective licence for driving the vehicle in question at the time of the accident. Reference to exhibit R-3 copy of the licence issued to the third respondent herein/first respondent before the Tribunal would go to show that the third respondent herein/first respondent before the Tribunal initially obtained licence on December 12, 1978, for driving a motor cycle, which was valid from December 12, 1978, to December 11, 1981, and later it was renewed up to December 11, 1986, and then up to December 11, 1991. It would also show that meanwhile he was also authorised to drive light motor vehicles from April 26, 1988. The accident took place on July 1, 1992, on which date, the third respondent herein/first respondent before the Tribunal was possessed of an effective licence to drive a light motor vehicle. It is contended by the appellant herein that the third respondent herein/first respondent before the Tribunal was not authorised to drive goods vehicle. Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act defines "light motor vehicle" as under : "(21) '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 6, 000 kilograms." Section 2(47) of the Motor Vehicles Act defines a transport vehicle as under : "(47) 'transport vehicle' means public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle." The question is whether the vehicle in question is a "light motor vehicle" and the licence given to the third respondent herein/first respondent before the Tribunal was an effective licence. Reference to exhibit R-4 insurance policy relating to the condition as to persons or classes of persons entitled to drive would be useful, which recites as under :Persons or classes of persons entitled to drive any of the following : (a) The insured; (b) Any other person who is driving on the insured's order or with his permission : Provided that the person driving holds or had held and has not been disqualified from holding an effective driving licence with all the required endorsements thereon as per the Motor Vehicles Act and the rules made thereunder for the time being in force to drive the category of Motor Vehicles Act and the rules made thereunder for the time being in force to drive the category of motor vehicles insured hereunder. In the instant case, the Tribunal has held that the owner himself has driven the vehicle : The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that under section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, no person shall drive a transport vehicle unless his driving licence specifically entitles him to do so. According to learned counsel, goods carriage is also a transport vehicle as defined under section 2(47) of the Motor Vehicles Act. So the minilorry involved in the accident is a goods carriage and comes within the definition of "transport vehicle". Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contends that the vehicle in question is a transport vehicle and therefore, the driver ought to have obtained driving licence authorising him to drive a transport vehicle. The driver having a licence to drive light motor vehicle, but not authorised to drive a "transport vehicle" had been allowed to drive the vehicle in question and, therefore, there is breach of condition. The only question is whether the third respondent herein/first respondent before the Tribunal had an effective driving licence on that date. Exhibit R-4 gives the description of the vehicle as Mahindra van and the gross vehicle weight as 3, 930 kgs. Therefore, the vehicle squarely falls within the definition of light motor vehicle.The next question is whether the description of light motor vehicle would cover light goods vehicle also. In a recent decision in Ashok Gangadhar Maratha v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 1999 (5) SCC 620. Their Lordships at the apex court have considered this question. It would be useful to refer to certain portions of the judgment. In a recent decision in Ashok Gangadhar Maratha v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 1999 (5) SCC 620. Their Lordships at the apex court have considered this question. It would be useful to refer to certain portions of the judgment. At page No. 624 in paragraphs 5 and 6, their Lordships have observed as under : "'transport vehicle' (clause (47)) means a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle; 'light motor vehicle' (clause (21)), means a transport vehicle or omni-bus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or roadroller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed 7, 500 kilograms; 'goods carriage' (clause (14)) means any motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use solely for the carriage of goods, or any motor vehicle not so constructed or adapted when used for carriage of goods; 'heavy goods vehicle' (clause (16)) means any goods carriage the gross vehicle weight of which, or a tractor or a roadroller the unladen weight of either of which, exceeds 12, 000 kilograms; and 'medium goods vehicle' (clause (23)) means any goods carriage other than a light motor vehicle or a heavy goods vehicle." Naga Saheb Jadhav, the driver was having the driving licence to drive a light motor vehicle. On the day of the accident, the vehicle was not carrying any goods. The contention of the insurer has been that the vehicle was a goods carriage and thus a transport vehicle. Rule 16 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, prescribes the form under which a driving licence is to be issued. It is Form 6. Jadhav was having a driving licence in Form 6 which was for driving a light motor vehicle. There was no endorsement on his driving licence authorising him to drive a transport vehicle. For a vehicle to be a transport vehicle, it must be a goods carriage which in turn means any motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use solely for the carriage of goods or when not so constructed or adapted used for the carriage of goods. We have the definitions of "heavy goods vehicle" and "medium goods vehicle". There is no definition of "light goods vehicle". Instead the definition is of "light motor vehicle". We have the definitions of "heavy goods vehicle" and "medium goods vehicle". There is no definition of "light goods vehicle". Instead the definition is of "light motor vehicle". If we apply the definition of a "light motor vehicle" as given in clause (21) of section 2 of the Act to mean a "transport vehicle" which in turn means a "goods carriage" then we have nowhere the definition of a "light motor vehicle" without it being a "goods carriage". Section 2 of the Act begins with the words "in this Act, unless the context otherwise requires". We have therefore, to give a meaningful interpretation to "light motor vehicle" as given in clause (21). Clause (e) of rule 2 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, defines "non-transport vehicle" to mean a motor vehicle which is not a transport vehicle (clause (e) renumbered as clause (h) by the 1993 Amendment to the rules). This definition would, therefore, take out of the definition of "transport vehicle" as given in clause (21) light motor vehicles which are not goods carriage. "Again in paragraph 10 of the judgment, their Lordships have observed as under :" 10. The definition of 'light motor vehicle' as given in clause (21) of section 2 of the Act can apply only to a 'light goods vehicle' or a 'light transport vehicle'. A 'light motor vehicle' otherwise has to be covered by the definition of 'motor vehicle' or 'vehicle' as given in clause (28) of section 2 of the Act. A light motor vehicle cannot always mean a light goods carriage. Light motor vehicle can be a non-transport vehicle as well : In paragraph No. 14 of the judgment, their Lordships have held as under : "14. Now the vehicle in the present case weighed 5, 920 kilograms and the driver had the driving licence to drive a light motor vehicle. It is not that, therefore, the insurance policy covered a transport vehicle which meant a goods carriage. The whole case of the insurer has been built on a wrong premises. It is itself the case of the insurer that in the case of a light motor vehicle which is a non-transport vehicle there was no statutory requirement to have a specific authorisation on the licence of the driver under Form 6 under the rules. The whole case of the insurer has been built on a wrong premises. It is itself the case of the insurer that in the case of a light motor vehicle which is a non-transport vehicle there was no statutory requirement to have a specific authorisation on the licence of the driver under Form 6 under the rules. It has therefore, to be held that Jadhav was holding an effective valid licence on the date of the accident to drive a light motor vehicle bearing registration No. KA-28-567." Their Lordships are of the view that if light motor vehicle would mean a transport vehicle and goods carriage is substituted in the place of transport vehicle then there would be absolutely no scope to apply for licence for light motor vehicle at all. It would thus appear that a combined reading of section 2(21) and 2(47) of the Motor Vehicles Act would show that goods carriage with less than 7, 500 kilograms of unladen vehicle is a light motor vehicle and a holder of licence to drive a light motor vehicle has authority to drive the vehicle involved in the accident. I am satisfied that the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that on this account also, the appellant herein is liable.In the result, this CMA is dismissed. The orders passed by the Tribunal is confirmed. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P. No. 5546 of 1998, which is for stay of all further proceedings, is dismissed and C.M.P. No. 16209 of 1999 is closed as no order is necessary.