ORDER: Respondents 1 to 3, who are the widow and parents of Mamidi Chandraiah (the deceased), filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act), seeking a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- from the 4th respondent, who is the owner of Auto bearing No.AP1T 9451, and the appellant, who is the insurer of the said auto, alleging that the deceased, who was aged about 23 years and earning about Rs.1,500/- per month by doing agricultural coolie work, had while travelling in the said Auto, died due to an accident caused as a result of the rash and negligent driving of its driver. 4th respondent chose to remain ex parte. Appellant filed its counter inter alia contending that it is not liable to pay any compensation inasmuch as the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid driving licence. In support of their case, the claimants examined one witness as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.5 on their behalf. The appellant examined one witness as R.W.1 and marked Exs.B.1 to B.3 on its behalf. The Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Auto and that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.1,67,590/- and that the appellant also is liable to pay compensation holding that the contention of the appellant that the driver of the auto was not having a valid driving licence is not tenable. Questioning the finding of the Tribunal that its contention that the driver of the auto involved in the accident was not having a valid driving licence at the time of accident is not tenable, the insurer of the auto preferred this appeal. 2. The point for consideration is whether the appellant is not liable to pay the compensation payable to the claimants? 3. 2. The point for consideration is whether the appellant is not liable to pay the compensation payable to the claimants? 3. The contention of the learned counsel for appellant is that, in view of the ratio in SANJAN KUMAR SARAF v. JIT BAHAN MAHTO, the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation to respondents 1 to 3 inasmuch as the driver of the auto in which the deceased was travelling at the time of the accident was not having valid driving licence, because the evidence of R.W.1 clearly shows that the driver of that auto was having a licence to drive light motor vehicles and auto- rickshaws from 14.05.1996 to 13.05.2016 and that it was converted as 'transport driving licence' only from 29.04.1999 up to 28.04.2002. It is his contention that as the accident involving the deceased occurred on 04.06.1996 i.e. long prior to the driver of that auto obtaining a 'transport driving licence' on 29.04.1999, the appellant cannot be made liable to pay the compensation payable to the claimants because the driver who does not have a transport driving licence cannot carry passengers, as an auto rickshaw carrying passengers would be a 'transport vehicle' within the meaning of Section 2(47) of the Act. There is no representation on behalf of respondents 1 to 3, though served. 4. The driving licence of the driver of the auto involved in the accident i.e. Ex.B.1 shows that he has a licence to drive light motor vehicles and auto- rickshaws, even by the date of accident. Ex.B.2, strongly relied on by the learned counsel for appellant, also shows that the driver of the auto has a licence to drive light motor vehicles and auto-rickshaws from 14.05.1996 onwards. The accident occurred on 04.06.1996. So, by the date of the accident, the driver of the auto does have a licence to drive not only auto-rickshaws but light motor vehicles also. The accident occurred on 04.06.1996. So, by the date of the accident, the driver of the auto does have a licence to drive not only auto-rickshaws but light motor vehicles also. As per Section 2(21) of the Act, 'Light Motor Vehicle' means, "a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed 7,500 kilograms." In view of the fact that the driver of the auto involved in the accident has a licence to drive light motor vehicles also, the fact of his subsequently seeking and obtaining a "transport driving licence" with effect from 29.04.1999 to 28.04.2002, would not be much of consequence with regard to the liability of the appellant to pay the compensation payable to the claimants because 'light motor vehicle' also is a 'transport vehicle' and as 'auto rickshaw' is not defined either in the Act, or in the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, or in the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. In fact, Rules 268 and 269 of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, which relate to the owner of the auto rickshaw maintaining record sheet and exhibition of particulars on auto rickshaw also are relevant to decide this question because they read: "268. Record Sheet for Auto-rickshaw:- The owner of every auto-rickshaw shall maintain a Record Sheet, serially numbered in duplicate in a bound book in Form RSA with a copy to be kept in the Auto-rickshaw. 269. Exhibition of particulars on Auto-rickshaw:- (i) The Driver and owner of every auto-rickshaw shall exhibit or cause to be exhibited a plate inside the auto-rickshaw on the portion between the driver's seat and the passengers seat in a manner visible to the passengers from the seat containing the following particulars, namely :- (a) Name of the auto owner; (b) Registration Number of the auto-rickshaw; (c) Tariff of the fare. (ii) The plate mentioned in sub-rule (1) above shall have dimensions of not less than 20 cms. in length and 20 cms. in width, with black background and white letters. The dimension of each letter written shall be not less than 3 mm. in length and 3 mm. in breadth; (iii) Every auto-rickshaw, when the vehicle is not to be engaged for hire or home bound or garage bound, 'TO SHED' board should be exhibited. in length and 20 cms. in width, with black background and white letters. The dimension of each letter written shall be not less than 3 mm. in length and 3 mm. in breadth; (iii) Every auto-rickshaw, when the vehicle is not to be engaged for hire or home bound or garage bound, 'TO SHED' board should be exhibited. The board should be painted in white letters on a black background both in Telugu and English. The letters shall be 2.5 cm in length and 2 cm. in breadth." Form RSA referred to in Rule 268 above reads: FORM RSA Record Sheet (See Rule 268 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989) 1. Owner's Name and Address: 2. Auto-rickshaw Registration No.: 3. Names and addresses of the drivers: 4. Who normally ply the vehicle: 1... 2... 3... Date Time Driver's Owner's Remarks From To Signature Signature 1. 2. 3. From the above Rules, it is clear that 'auto-rickshaws' can carry passengers. Therefore, a person having a licence to drive auto-rickshaws only without having a licence to drive light motor vehicles, also can drive auto-rickshaws carrying passengers. 5. In view of the fact that the driver of the auto in this case has a licence to drive light motor vehicles also apart from auto rickshaw even by the date of accident, question whether an auto-rickshaw becomes a transport vehicle within the meaning of Section 2(47) of the Act or not may not be of much consequence because 'light motor vehicle' also is a transport vehicle. 6. The learned counsel for appellant drew my attention to Form No.6 i.e. the form in which a driving licence, as per Rule 16(1) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, would be issued containing 2 columns reading: "A motor vehicle of the following description: The licence to drive a motor The licence to drive vehicle other than transport transport vehicle is valid vehicle is valid from...............to......... From...........to............" and contended that inasmuch as the driver of the auto obtained the licence to drive transport vehicles only from 29.04.1999 up to 28.04.2002, it cannot be said that he was having a valid licence to carry passengers in an auto rickshaw. From...........to............" and contended that inasmuch as the driver of the auto obtained the licence to drive transport vehicles only from 29.04.1999 up to 28.04.2002, it cannot be said that he was having a valid licence to carry passengers in an auto rickshaw. I find no force in the said contention because as per Section 2(47) of the Act, 'transport vehicle' means "a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle." Section 2(35) of the Act defines 'public service vehicle' as "any motor vehicle used or adapted to be used for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward, and includes a maxicab, a motorcab, contract carriage, and stage carriage." Section 2(14) of the Act defines 'goods carriage' as "any motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use solely for the carriage of goods, or any motor vehicle not so constructed or adapted when used for the carriage of goods." Section 2(1) of the Act defines 'educational institution bus' as "an omnibus, which is owned by a college, school or other educational institution and used solely for the purpose of transporting students or staff of the educational institution in connection with any of its activities." Section 2(33) of the Act defines 'private service vehicle' as "a motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry more than six persons excluding the driver and ordinarily used by or on behalf of the owner of such vehicle for the purpose of carrying persons for, or in connection with, his trade or business otherwise than for hire or reward but does not include a motor vehicle used for public purposes." So the driver of the auto, who had a driving licence to drive light motor vehicles and auto-rickshaws earlier, could even drive public service vehicles, goods carriages, educational institution busses and private service vehicles also from 29.04.1999 when he was given the licence to drive 'transport vehicles' also. So, the 4th respondent by entrusting the auto to the driver who caused the accident cannot be said to have violated the terms and conditions of the policy, as it cannot be said that he permitted a person who is not having a valid driving licence to drive his auto to relieve his insurer for its liability to indemnify him and so I hold that the Tribunal did not commit any error in making the appellant also liable to pay the compensation payable to respondents 1 to 3. The point is answered accordingly. 7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, but, in the circumstances, without costs.