Judgment V. M. Jain, J. 1. This order shall dispose of F. A. O. Nos.1261 to 1271 of 2003 (11 appeals), as all these appeals have arisen against the same award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. 2. The appellant insurance company has filed the above-mentioned appeals against the award of the learned Tribunal, whereby various amounts of compensation had been awarded to the claimants. While awarding the compensation amount to the claimants, the learned Tribunal had found that the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a valid driving licence, authorising him to drive the scooter/motor cycle and car/jeep and that the said licence was valid up to 26.6.2002. It was also found by the learned Tribunal that the offending vehicle was a jeep and as such the driver was holding a valid driving licence to drive a jeep. Resultantly, the learned Tribunal had held the appellant insurance company liable to pay the compensation amount to the claimants, jointly and severally, with the owner of the offending jeep. Aggrieved against the said award of the learned Tribunal (in 13 claim petitions), the appellant insurance company has filed these 11 F. A. Os. in this court. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant insurance company submitted before us that the jeep in question was a maxicab, as defined under sec. 2 (22) of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and was also a public service vehicle, as defined under sec. 2 (35) of the Act and thus, was a transport vehicle, as defined under sec. 2 (47) of the Act and since the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a driving licence to drive the transport vehicle, the appellant insurance company was not liable to pay the compensation amount to the claimants. 4. However, we find no force in this submission of the learned counsel for the appellant insurance company. Along with the miscellaneous application, appellant insurance company had placed on record a copy of the registration certificate in respect of the offending vehicle. A perusal of the said certificate of registration would show that the vehicle in question was registered as a jeep, with a seating capacity of 10 persons. As per the said registration certificate, there is nothing to indicate that the said vehicle was registered by the registration authority as a maxicab or a public service vehicle or a transport vehicle. A perusal of the said certificate of registration would show that the vehicle in question was registered as a jeep, with a seating capacity of 10 persons. As per the said registration certificate, there is nothing to indicate that the said vehicle was registered by the registration authority as a maxicab or a public service vehicle or a transport vehicle. On the other hand, the said vehicle was registered as a jeep, having a seating capacity of 10 persons. That being so, the vehicle in question was registered as omnibus, as defined under sec. 2 (29) of the Act. Under sec. 2 (29) of the Act, omnibus means any motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry more than six persons, excluding the driver. Since the jeep in question was registered as a jeep, having seating capacity of 10 persons, it would come within the definition of omnibus. 5. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant insurance company that the jeep in question was a maxicab, as defined under sec. 2 (22) of the Act, in our opinion, is not tenable. Under sec. 2 (22) of the Act maxicab means any motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry more than 6 passengers but not more than 12 passengers, excluding the driver, for hire or reward. Since the vehicle in question was not registered by the registration authority as a jeep meant for hire or reward, in our opinion, the jeep in question could not be termed as a maxicab. On the other hand, the jeep in question would be termed as omnibus, as referred to above. Once it is found that the jeep in question was not a maxicab, it could not be termed as a public service vehicle, as defined under sec. 2 (35) of the Act, according to which, a public service vehicle would mean any motor vehicle, used or adapted to be used for carriage of passenger for hire or reward and would include a maxicab, a motor car, contract carriage and stage carriage. Similarly, the jeep in question could not be termed as a transport vehicle, as defined under sec. 2 (47) of the Act, which means a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle. 6. Similarly, the jeep in question could not be termed as a transport vehicle, as defined under sec. 2 (47) of the Act, which means a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle. 6. From the above discussion, it would be clear that the jeep in question was neither a maxicab nor a transport vehicle, since the jeep in question was never registered for hire or reward. That being so, in our opinion, it could not be said that the driver of the offending vehicle, who was holding a valid driving licence to drive car/ jeep on the date of the accident, was not holding a valid driving licence, especially when the vehicle in question was registered as a jeep by the registration authority. 7. It was then submitted before us by learned counsel for the appellant insurance company that the vehicle in question was insured by the appellant insurance company to carry passengers on hire, as per certificate-cum-policy schedule, produced before us by way of miscellaneous application and as such, the driver was not competent to drive the offending vehicle inasmuch as the vehicle in question was a transport vehicle and the driver was not holding a driving licence to drive a transport vehicle. In our opinion, this argument, raised before us by learned counsel for the appellant insurance company is fallacious. The question as to whether the driver is competent to drive a motor vehicle or not, depends upon the nature of the motor vehicle registered with the registration authority. As referred to above, in the present case, the jeep in question was registered by the registration authority simply as a jeep, having a seating capacity of 10 persons, without any stipulation that the said jeep was registered for carrying passengers for hire or reward. That being so, in our opinion, the said vehicle could not be termed as a transport vehicle and as such, the driver was not required to hold a driving licence for driving the transport vehicles. That being so, in our opinion, the said vehicle could not be termed as a transport vehicle and as such, the driver was not required to hold a driving licence for driving the transport vehicles. Merely because appellant insurance company had insured the said vehicle for carrying passengers on hire, in our opinion, would not make the said vehicle a transport vehicle, for the purposes of the driver of the said vehicle to obtain licence for driving transport vehicles nor the said vehicle would become a maxicab merely because the owner of the said vehicle got it insured with the insurance company for carrying passengers on hire. There is absolutely nothing on the record to show that at the time of registration of the vehicle, the said vehicle was registered as a maxicab or that the said vehicle could be used for carrying passengers on hire or reward, as per the registration certificate issued by the registration authorities. In our opinion, the competence of the driver to drive a vehicle would be considered vis-a-vis the nature of the vehicle, as per the registration record and not as per the terms of the insurance policy. In this view of the matter, in our opinion, it could not be said that the driver was not holding a valid driving licence, as claimed by the appellant insurance company. 8. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant insurance company that as per the terms of the insurance policy, a copy of which has been produced before us along with the miscellaneous application, the vehicle in question was insured in respect of nine passengers and one driver, in all ten persons, whereas in the present case 13 persons had filed the claim petitions claiming compensation and that the appellant insurance company was not liable to reimburse the owner in respect of persons other than nine passengers and one driver. However, we find no force in this submission of the learned counsel for the appellant insurance company. Copies of the written statement filed by the appellant insurance company in various claim petitions have been produced before us by appellant insurance company along with the miscellaneous applications. A perusal of the said written statements would show that no such objection was ever raised by the appellant insurance company in the respective written statements. Copies of the written statement filed by the appellant insurance company in various claim petitions have been produced before us by appellant insurance company along with the miscellaneous applications. A perusal of the said written statements would show that no such objection was ever raised by the appellant insurance company in the respective written statements. Furthermore, from a perusal of the award given by the learned Tribunal, it would be clear that no such point was raised before the learned tribunal on behalf of the appellant insurance company. It is for the first time that the appellant insurance company has taken up this point in these appeals. In our opinion, appellant insurance company cannot be allowed to take up this point for the first time in these appeals specially when this point was not taken by them either in the written statement or before the Tribunal. No other point was urged before us in these appeals. For the reasons recorded above, we find no merit in these appeals and the same are hereby dismissed. Appeals dismissed.