Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—By this appeal, the appellant/Oriental Insurance Company has challenged the legality, propriety and liability of the order dated 14.5.1999 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Janjgir, in Claim Case No.08/98 on the ground that respondent No.6 was not having effective driving licence and the deceased was traveling as an employee but premium has not been paid to cover the risk of such employee. 2. Brief facts of the case are; respondent No.6 Dinesh Kumar Agarwal is the owner and driver of matador vehicle bearing registration No.M.P.26 D.4109 which was insured with the appellant on 6.12.96. On the date of alleged matador accident deceased Bajrang Lal (husband of respondent No.3, father of respondents No.4 and 5 and son of respondents No.1 and 2) was traveling in the said matador as a labour of respondent No.6. On account of matador accident Bajrang sustained injuries and he died due to said injuries. Claim petition u/Sec. 161 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 has filed by respondents No.1 to 5 against respondent No.6 and against the present appellant in which the present appellant has specifically alleged/pleaded that respondent No.6 was not having effective driving license to drive the transport vehicle and has violated the condition of insurance contract, therefore, the present appellant is not liable for any compensation on account of matador accident. After holding an opportunity of hearing to the parties, learned Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Janjgir has held that respondent No.6 was having effective driving license to drive the light motor vehicle and the alleged matador which total weight was 680.00 km. was within the definition of light motor vehicle, therefore, respondent No.6 has not violated the condition of the insurance policy and therefore, the appellant is liable to pay compensation on account of insurance contract and has awarded Rs.1,70,200/- against the appellant. 3. I have heard Shri Abhishekh Sinha with Shri Ghanshyam Patel, counsel for the appellant and Shri Ashok Dixit, counsel for respondent No.6 and perused the award impugned and record of the Court below. 4. 3. I have heard Shri Abhishekh Sinha with Shri Ghanshyam Patel, counsel for the appellant and Shri Ashok Dixit, counsel for respondent No.6 and perused the award impugned and record of the Court below. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that matador may be of any weight use for the purpose of transport goods carriage as transport vehicle within the definition of transport vehicle under clause (47) of Section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') and a person having driving licence to drive motor vehicle is not competent to drive the transport vehicle unless licence is also issued to drive the transport vehicle. Learned counsel further argued that deceased Bajrang Lal was traveling as a labour of respondent No.6 for which no extra premium as required under the law was paid, therefore, the insurance company is not liable for any compensation in the absence of contract to cover the risk of the person/employee in connection with the operation or maintenance or loading or unloading of motor vehicle. Learned counsel also argued that base is required to drive the transport vehicle in accordance with motor vehicles rules. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of National Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Cholleti Bharatamma & Ors.1 in which it has been held by the Apex Court that insurance company is not liable for any compensation for the person whose risk is not covered by the insurance policy. Learned counsel further placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of New India Assurance Co.Ltd. vs.Prabhu Lal2 in which it has been held by the Apex Court that a person holding light motor vehicle, driving license is not authorized to drive the transport vehicle and in such cases, insurance company is not liable for any compensation even on the ground that at the time of accident the vehicle was not carrying goods. Learned counsel also placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Oriental Insurance Co Ltd. vs. Angad Kol & Ors. Learned counsel also placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Oriental Insurance Co Ltd. vs. Angad Kol & Ors. decided on 18.2.2009 in Civil Appeal No.1102 of 2009 in which it has been held by the Apex Court that driver of the vehicle is required to possess effective driving licence of the goods vehicle/transport vehicle and in the absence of such effective driving licence, insurance company is not liable for any compensation. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6 argued that the appellant has alleged in his reply that respondent No.6 was not possessing effective driving licence, therefore, burden is of the appellant to prove that respondent No.6 was not having effective driving lisence and in the absence of such prove, no presumption would be possible that driver was not having effective licence. Learned counsel further argued that the appellant has insured the vehicle on the basis of proposal (Ex.P/1) of respondent No.6. Insurance Company has been prepared on the basis of proposal and especially cover note issued by the agency of the appellant which shows that the appellant has insured the vehicle for 1 + 6 = 7 passengers, but vehicle is not permissible to carry the passengers, therefore, it must be presumed that the vehicle was insured for 1 + 6 = 7 persons including the labour of the employer/owner of the vehicle but the present appellant has not issued the policy (Ex.P/1) on the basis of such proposal and deliberately the appellant has blanked the column relating to the risk of employees of the owner, therefore, the appellant's contract benefit of his own fault and the appellant is liable to pay compensation to the claimants on account of death of Bajrang Lal on account of matador accident. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Annappa Irappa Nesaria & Ors.3 in which it has been held by the Apex Court that before amendment of 2001, light motor vehicle covers light passenger carriage vehicle and light goods carriage vehicle. Driver possessing LMV licence cannot be said to not possess effective licence to drive matador van having goods carriage permit. 6. Driver possessing LMV licence cannot be said to not possess effective licence to drive matador van having goods carriage permit. 6. In this case, it is specifically admitted by respondent No.6 in para-10 of his evidence that at the time of the accident he was possessing driving licence to drive light motor vehicle but it was told by the transport officer that he may drive the transport vehicle and he has not filed any document to this effect. Respondent No.6 is the owner and driver of the vehicle and he was under obligation to establish the fact that he was having effective licence but he has not filed any document but has admitted in his evidence that he was possessing driving licence to drive light motor vehicle. In the light of above admission, it is clear that the appellant was possessing driving licence to drive light motor vehicle at the relevant time. 7. The incident took place on 11.11.97 prior to amendment in the motor vehicle act but in the matter of Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. (supra), the Apex Court has considered the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. (supra) and has held that the amendment become effective from 28.3.2001 and amendment was prospective not retros-pective. Admittedly, the accident took place on 11.11.97 at that time motor vehicle act was not amended, therefore, the law laid down in National Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) will not affect to the present case. 8. As held by the Apex Court in the matter of New India Assurance Co.Ltd & Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd (supra) the driver of the vehicle is required to possess effective licence to drive the transport vehicle even in the case of unload vehicle which may fall under the definition of light motor vehicle. The present appellant was required to possess effective driving licence to drive the transport vehicle but he did not possess effective driving licence to drive transport vehicle at the time of alleged accident. 9. As regards the question of risk covered by the insurance company relating to the employee of the driver/owner is concerned, in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of National Insurance Co.Ltd. (supra), insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation, therefore, risk was not covered by the policy. 10. 9. As regards the question of risk covered by the insurance company relating to the employee of the driver/owner is concerned, in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of National Insurance Co.Ltd. (supra), insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation, therefore, risk was not covered by the policy. 10. In the instant case, the discrepancy in the alleged cover note though that has not been admitted in evidence and insurance policy shows that the vehicle was insured for 1 + 6 = 7 passengers but insurance policy Ex.D/1 shows that it was insured for carrying vehicle, non-fair compensation passengers and for the property damage but was not insured to cover the risk of the employee of the owner. It is specifically stated by Nathan (AW-1) in his claim petition that deceased Bajrang was traveling in the vehicle as a labour of the employer. He was not traveling as a passenger. His risk has not been covered under the insurance policy (Ex.D/1) or even under the cover note which shows that risk of passengers has been covered. 11. Learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has held that on the basis of weight of the vehicle same was light motor vehicle and driver was possessing driving licence to drive light motor vehicle and also held that cover note has been issued by the authority of the insurance company and has received the cover note for 6 passengers and awarded the compensation against the appellant. But this is not case of passenger but this is a case of employee of the owner of the vehicle for which no premium was paid. Even the claimant or owner of the vehicle has not alleged anything that deceased Bajrang was sitting in the vehicle as a passenger, inter alia, they have specifically alleged and told that he was traveling in the vehicle as a labour of the employer. Learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has also not considered the fact that for driving the transport vehicle, effective driving licence to drive motor vehicle was required irrespective of the weight of the vehicle and thereby arriving at wrong conclusion that the appellant is liable to pay compensation. 12. For the foregoing reasons, award impugned is not sustainable under the law. The appellant is not liable to pay any compensation to respondents No. 1 to 5. 12. For the foregoing reasons, award impugned is not sustainable under the law. The appellant is not liable to pay any compensation to respondents No. 1 to 5. Respondent No.6 has not filed any appeal or cross-objection, therefore, primarily and substantially only respondent No.6 is liable to pay compensation to respondents No.1 to 5 on account of death of Bajrang lal on the ground of violation of condition of the insurance contract. The present appellant is not liable to pay any compensation on account of torts of the respondent No.6. 13. Consequently, the appeal deserves to be allowed and it is hereby allowed. The present appellant is exonerated from payment of compensation to respondents No.1 to 5 for torts committed by respondent No.6. No order as to costs.