JUDGMENT Heard on admission. By this appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the appellant-Insurance company assails the award dated 29.6.2004 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhopal in M.C.C. No. 8312004. The only ground, peculiar to the Insurance Company, urged is that though a mini-bus carrying passengers was involved in the accident, its driver did not possess the licence to drive the said vehicle but only a licence for driving light motor vehicle. Learned counsel has invited attention to section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act with regard to the necessity for driving a particular class of vehicle and submitted that since, admittedly, the driver of the offending vehicle had possessed a driving licence for driving light motor vehicle, and not a transport vehicle, the Insurance Company ought to have been relieved of its obligation under the insurance cover granted to the insured. The contention raised by the learned counsel overlooks the fact that the definition of 'light motor vehicle contained in section 2 (21) includes a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of which, does not exceed 7500 kilograms. For ready reference, we reproduce the· definition hereunder: "(21) 'light motor vehicle' means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor case or tractor or road-roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed 7500 kilograms.' The question with regard to the liability of the insurer in a similar situation arose before the Apex Court in Ashok Gangadhar Maratha v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. ( AIR 1999 SC 3181 ) and it was observed that definition of 'light motor vehicle' as given in clause (21) of section 2 of the Act can apply only to 'light goods vehicle' or a 'light transport vehicle' :In the said case, there was evidence to the effect that the vehicle weighed only 5920 kilograms and in that context, it was held that the person, driving the vehicle, was holding effective valid licence on the date of accident to drive the light motor vehicle. In the case in hand, it is not disputed that the driver, who was driving the vehicle, at the time of the accident, was a holder of a licence to drive a light motor vehicle. In the case in hand, it is not disputed that the driver, who was driving the vehicle, at the time of the accident, was a holder of a licence to drive a light motor vehicle. It cannot be disputed that by virtue of the licence he was entitled to drive a light motor vehicle having a weight not exceeding 7500 kilograms. There is no evidence that the vehicle involved in the accident weighed more than 7500 kilograms. Since there is no evidence as to the weight of the mini-bus, it cannot be said that there was an infraction of the conditions of the Insurance Policy. We are, therefore, unable to appreciate the contention 'of the learned counsel that it constituted breach of the policy conditions. Since permission had not been obtained by the Insurance Company under section 170 of the Act, the Insurance Company cannot challenge the award on the question of quantum of compensation. We, therefore, do not find any substance in this appeal. The appeal is, thus, summarily dismissed. Consequently, MCP No. 3429/2004 for stay also stands dismissed.