A. M. SAPRE, J. ( 1 ) OWNER of vehicle in question has come up in appeal challenging the award dated 6. 12. 1996 passed in claim Case No. 28 of 1996 by M. A. C. T. , ratlam. The challenge in this appeal by the owner is only against one finding, namely, Tribunal erred in exonerating the insurance company. To examine this issue, few facts need mention as they lie in a narrow compass. ( 2 ) ON 3. 12. 1995 one Munnibai met with an accident when the offending vehicle bearing No. MP-14-B-4667 dashed munnibai. She died on the spot. This led to filing of claim petition by the present respondent Nos. 1 to 3 who are her legal representatives, out of which this appeal arise, claiming compensation for her death against the owner, i. e. , appellant, driver of vehicle the respondent No. 4 and the insurance company with whom the offending vehicle was insured the respondent No. 5 were non-applicants. ( 3 ) THE claim petition was contested by all the three non-applicants. So far-as the insurance company was concerned it while denying its liability alleged that driver of the vehicle did not possess the valid driving licence at the time of accident and hence, no liability can be fastened on the insurance company. ( 4 ) BY impugned award the Tribunal held that the accident was as a result of rash and negligent driving of the driver of vehicle in question. The Tribunal then held that driver was holding the licence for light motor vehicle (LMV), whereas the truck in question was heavy motor vehicle and hence it has to be held that the driver was not holding a valid legal licence. Accordingly and on this basis, insurance company was not held liable and consequently exonerated. The Tribunal then determined compensation at Rs. 78,400 payable to the claimants and granted the decree by passing award only against the owner and driver jointly and severally. It is against this award, the owner has felt aggrieved and filed this appeal. ( 5 ) HEARD Mr. N. S. Purohit, the learned counsel for the appellant (owner) and Mr. Manish Jt n, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. R. Sugandhi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5. It is against this award, the owner has felt aggrieved and filed this appeal. ( 5 ) HEARD Mr. N. S. Purohit, the learned counsel for the appellant (owner) and Mr. Manish Jt n, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. R. Sugandhi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5. ( 6 ) ATTACKING the finding of Tribunal insofar as it relates to exonerating the insurance company concerned learned counsel for the appellant (owner) argued that finding is on the face of it without jurisdiction and hence needs to be set aside. According to learned counsel the vehicle in question was a mini truck having its total weight 6,000 kg. Relying upon the definition of light motor vehicle as defined in section 2 (21) of the Act, learned counsel argued that any vehicle which has a weight of 7,500 kg. is a light motor vehicle and hence admittedly the offending vehicle in question was a light motor vehicle as its weight was 6,000 kg. , i. e. , less than 7,500 kg. It was, therefore, urged that the driver of the offending vehicle was having a valid licence L. M. V. and secondly he was driving a light motor vehicle. On this submission, it was urged that the Tribunal had erred in taking a view that driver was driving a heavy vehicle. It was further submitted that what has to be seen in such case is not the nomenclature of a vehicle but its weight because in order to determine whether a particular vehicle is a light vehicle or heavy, the same has to be determined with reference to its total weight as defined in section 2 (21) ibid. It was pointed out on the basis of Exh. D-3 that the weight of offending truck was 6,000 kg. and hence it fulfilled the requirement of section 2 (21) ibid. ( 7 ) IN reply learned counsel for the company could not point out any infirmity in the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant except to support the impugned award. ( 8 ) HAVING heard the arguments of parties and having perused the entire record of the case, I am inclined to accept the submission of learned counsel for the appellant and as a consequence appeal deserves to be allowed to that extent as prayed by the appellant. ( 8 ) HAVING heard the arguments of parties and having perused the entire record of the case, I am inclined to accept the submission of learned counsel for the appellant and as a consequence appeal deserves to be allowed to that extent as prayed by the appellant. ( 9 ) IT is now more or less an admitted fact as emerging from Exh. D-3 which is an insurance policy that the weight of the offending truck was 6,000 kg. and, therefore, it satisfied the requirement of light motor vehicle as defined in section 2 (21)of the Act. Once it is held that the truck in question was a light motor vehicle, then it follows that the driver had a valid licence at the time of accident. As rightly urged by the learned counsel for the appellant, it is not the nomenclature of vehicle that is decisive in determining whether it is light vehicle or heavy but what is decisive is its weight. ( 10 ) IN view of aforesaid discussion, I have no hesitation in holding that the driver of the vehicle in question was holding a valid driving licence and that he was driving a light motor vehicle at the time of accident. Accordingly, the impugned award insofar as it exonerates the insurance company is concerned is set aside and it is held that insurance company is jointly and severally liable along with the owner and driver to pay the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Appeal is accordingly allowed. Appeal allowed. .