( 1 ) THIS appeal arises out of the judgment dated 21. 11. 2003 passed by the motor Accident Claim, Tribunal (Auxi.) jamnagar in Claim Petition No. 786 of 1996. ( 2 ) THE accident took place on 1. 7. 1996 on Highway, Dakor Mahudha. Rameshbhai Mansukhlal Patel (Deceased) was going in the Tempo bearing Registration no. GJ-IV-3832 with the other labourer, for unloading the goods at Dakor, which he was returning from Dakor, accident took place. The grievance is that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, otherwise, it could be avoided. The deceased was doing the work of labourer for loading and unloading the vehicle, earning Rs. 100. 00 per day and rs. 3000. 00 per month. The deceased left behind him widow and children. Compensation of Rs. 5,00,000. 00 is claimed. The driver and owner of the vehicle have not appeared before the Tribunal, therefore, the tribunal proceeded ex-parte while the insurance Company filed written statement and contended that the claim is not bona fide, therefore, liable to be dismissed. It is denied that the vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently with excessive speed and accident took place due to the negligence of the driver of Tempo. It is denied that the deceased was travelling in the vehicle as a labourer and the claimants are heirs of the deceased. Besides, it is denied that the deceased was earning Rs. 3000. 00 p. m. The driver did not possess valid driving licence. ( 3 ) ON the basis of the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed. It is held that the accident took place as alleged. The deceased died in the accident. He was working as a laboure, therefore, compensation of Rs. 1,64,000. 00 with interest at the rate of 9 % p. a. from the date of the application till realization with proportionate costs is awarded from the opponents jointly and severally. ( 4 ) THE appellant National Insurance co. Ltd. is not satisfied with this award. Therefore, it has been challenged through this appeal on the ground that the driver did not possess valid driving license to drive the vehicle. The submission is that he is possessing driving license for Light Motor vehicle while the offending vehicle is not the light motor vehicle. This contention has been rejected by the Claims Tribunal. Therefore, it has been challenged through this appeal on the ground that the driver did not possess valid driving license to drive the vehicle. The submission is that he is possessing driving license for Light Motor vehicle while the offending vehicle is not the light motor vehicle. This contention has been rejected by the Claims Tribunal. Rightly so, after considering relevant documents, registration Certificate of the vehicle which records it Light Motor Vehicle, gross weight 5300 kgs. As per section 2 (21), "light Motor vehicle, means transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road roller the unladen weight of any which, does not exceed (7900) kgs. Consequently, it can be held that the offending vehicle was the Light motor Vehicle and the driver possessed valid license to drive the said vehicle. ( 5 ) NEXT question is whether the deceased was authorized passenger in the offending vehicle or he was labourer. The submission of the appellant is that he was unauthorized passenger not covered by the policy and the Registration Certificate and, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the awarded amount. Specific case of the Insurance Company has been that the deceased was unauthorized passenger and registration covers the driver and the insurance policy does not make mention of any person to be covered by it. The Registration Certificate speaks sitting capacity and the usage (including driver, 2) one more person could be seated in the vehicle. The Insurance Policy does not prohibit it. With this back ground, there is no difficulty in accepting the contention of the claimant (widow of the deceased) that the deceased was engaged as labourer in the offending vehicle for loading and unloading the goods and was being paid Rs. 100. 00 per day and Rs. 3000. 00 per month, in absence of any other evidence to the contrary. No further submission is made on behalf of the appellant for our consideration. ( 6 ) THE result is, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. ( 7 ) MS, Bhaya submits that the amount deposited in the Registry may be ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal concerned to become part of the awarded amount payable to the claimants. ( 6 ) THE result is, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. ( 7 ) MS, Bhaya submits that the amount deposited in the Registry may be ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal concerned to become part of the awarded amount payable to the claimants. We direct that the amount deposited by the appellant in the registry of this Court be transmitted to the tribunal concerned for being paid to the claimants as per the award on proper verification. In case the appellant has not deposited the balance amount before, the claims tribunal as per the award, same shall be deposited by the appealant within four weeks so that it is paid to the claimants. ( 8 ) IN view of the above orders, Civil application is also disposed of. .