JudgmentJudgment A.N.Jindal, J. 1. This appeal, preferred by the appellant?Insurance Company, is directed against the award dated 04.12.2008, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonepat, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.3,94,000/? alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum was awarded in favour of claimants? respondents No.l to 5 and against the appellant and respondents No.6 & 7 jointly and severally. 2. The only ground set up by the appellant?Insurance Company to challenge the award is that the insurance company could not be fastened with the liability as the driver?respondent No.6 was not holding a valid driving licence to drive the offending vehicle i.e. TATA 407. which could be termed as heavy transport vehicle, at the time of accident. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has stated that the driving licence, produced on record as Ex.P2, issued to respondent No.7 is for driving the heavy transport vehicles. As per the copy of licence, produced before me, the licence was issued to respondent No.7 on 17.01.2001 for driving motorcycle, car jeep and scooter etc. However, on production of adequate training from Driving Training School, Murthal, the Licencing Authority?cum District Transport Office, Sonepat upgraded the licence by authorizing him to drive the heavy motor vehicles w.e.f. 17.01.2003. The licence was renewed on 07.07.2003 upto 06.07.2007 whereas the accident took place on 24.09.2005. As such, the respondent No.7 was holding a valid driving licence for driving the heavy transport vehicles at the time of accident. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has cited the judgment delivered in case New India Assurance Company Limited v. Prubhu Lal, 2008(1) R. C.R. (Civil) 198?2008 ACJ 62 7 where in it was observed that in the light of the fact that respondent No.l was holding a valid driving licence for driving the heavy transport vehicle, therefore, he could not drive the offending vehicle but the said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case. No merits.