JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been preferred against the award dated 14.12.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur District, Jaipur in a Claim Petition No. 221/2007 whereby a sum of Rs. 4,69,000/- has been paid as compensation on account of death of 29 years person, leaving behind the claimants, in a road accident, on the ground that driver of the offending vehicle was not possessed of a valid licence. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. The accident took place on 29.5.2006 while the deceased Shankar Lal and Chhitarmal were going to their village from Dausa in a Jeep No. RJ 14 T-5629 and while they reached near village-Zirota Khurd at about 11.45 AM met with an accident caused due to the negligence of the driver of Maruti Van No. RJ-29-T-100 Claim petition was filed which was contested by the other side. On appreciation of evidence impugned award has been passed. 4. The plea of learned counsel for the appellant is that the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing a valid driving licence to drive light motor vehicle under the Motor Vehicles Act as a driver was carrying the passengers in the offending vehicle. Learned counsel for the respondents, in rebuttal, has submitted that the weight of the Maruti Van (offending vehicle) is 785 Kg. which comes within the category of light motor vehicle and thus the driver was having valid licence to drive the vehicle involved in the accident. 5. The question raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the driver of offending vehicle was having licence to drive light motor vehicle whereas he was carrying passenger in the offending vehicle. Therefore, it is a transport vehicle and the licence possessed by him is not valid in law. 6. The weight of the Maruti Van is 785 Kg. therefore, it comes in the category of light vehicle. The driver has license to drive light motor vehicle, such type of vehicle as Maruti Van. The plea of learned counsel for the appellant that since the driver was carrying passengers, therefore, it is transport vehicle and the driver was not having license to drive the transport vehicle. therefore, it comes in the category of light vehicle. The driver has license to drive light motor vehicle, such type of vehicle as Maruti Van. The plea of learned counsel for the appellant that since the driver was carrying passengers, therefore, it is transport vehicle and the driver was not having license to drive the transport vehicle. His plea finds complete answer in the judgment of the Supreme Court delivered in case title National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Annappa Irappa Nesaria and Ors., reported in 2008(1) T.A.C. 812 (S.C.) , wherein while dealing with such a plea, the Apex Court observed in paras 14 to 17 as under : "14. Rule 14 prescribes for filing of an application in Form 4, for, a licence to drive a motor vehicle, categorizing the same in nine types of vehicles. Clause (e) provides for Transport vehicle which has been substituted by G.S.R. 221(E) with effect for 28th March, 2001. Before the amendment in 2001, the entries medium goods vehicle and heavy goods vehicle existed which have been substituted by transport vehicle. As noticed herein before Light Motor Vehicles also found place therein. 15. Light Motor vehicle is defined in Section 2(21) and, therefore, in view of the provision as then existed it included a light transport vehicle ........................................................................................................ ..................................................................................................................... 16. From what has been noticed hereinbefore, it is evident that transport vehicle has now been substituted for 'medium goods vehicle and heavy goods vehicle'. The light motor vehicle continued at the relevant point of time, to cover both light passenger carriage vehicle and light goods carriage vehicle. A driver who had a valid licence to drive a light motor vehicle, therefore, was authorised to drive a light goods vehicle as well. 17. The amendments carried out in the Rules having. a prospective operation, the licence held by the driver of the vehicle in question cannot be said to be invalid in law." In view of the above mandate of law there is no merit in the appeal which is accordingly dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******