Judgment K.C.Puri, J. 1 The Oriental Insurance Company has directed this appeal against the award dated 1.12.2007 passed by Shri S.S. Lamba, learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar, for absolving it from the its liability as per aforesaid award. 2 Brief facts of the case of the claimant are that on 26.5.2006 at 8.00 A.M. the deceased alongwith Jagdish Chander was standing on the Bus Stand of Dhandoor Bir, waiting for arrival of a bus for going to Hisar. They were standing on the extreme left side. In the meanwhile, offending vehicle bearing registration No. IIR 39A/2973 bearing driven by respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, came from the side of Sirsa and hit against Joginder Singh. Due to this impact, Joginder Singh received multiple and grievous injuries. The offending vehile i.e. Tata 407 turned turtle after the accident on eastern side. Jagdish and Rajbir after arranging three-wheeler, took injured to General Hospital, Hisar but injured succumbed to the injuries in the midway to the hospital. FIR was registered. 3 It has been asserted that the deceased was earning Rs. 6,000/ per month from agriculture and labour work and deceased used to contribute his entire salary in the household expenses and the claimant were fully dependent on him. 4 The claimant, therefore, sought compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,00,000/- from the driver, owner and insurer of the offending "TATA 407 bearing Registration No. HR 39A/2973 together with cost of the proceeding and interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing the petition till realization of the awarded amount. 5 Respondent No. 1 and 2 Filed written statement denying the allegations as a whole and asserted that no accident took place with this vehicle and further asserted that a false and concocted story has been made only to grab false compensation. 6 Respondent No. 3 Oriental Insurance Company has also filed written statement on the same lines and has also taken various preliminary objections. Following issues were framed. 1. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of "TATA 407 bearing registration No. HR-39A/2973 by respondent No. 1 Satpal ? OPP 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation on account of death of Joginder Singh, if so, to what amount and from whom ? OPP 3. Following issues were framed. 1. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of "TATA 407 bearing registration No. HR-39A/2973 by respondent No. 1 Satpal ? OPP 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation on account of death of Joginder Singh, if so, to what amount and from whom ? OPP 3. Whether the vehicle bearing registration No. HR 39A/2973 was being driven by respondent No. 1 without holding effective driving licence ? OPR-3 4. Whether the vehicle bearing registration No. HR 39A/2973 was being driven by respondent No. 1 in contravention of the terms and conditions of the policy ? OPR-3 5. Relief. The parties have led their respective evidence. 7 On appreciation of the evidence and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned Tribunal has partly accepted the claim petition and awarded Rs. 3,60,000/- to the claimants with costs and, future interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till realization of the amount. Out of this amount, Rs. 2,60,000/- were ordered to be paid to claimant-Mukesh and the remaining amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- were ordered to be paid to claimants No. 2 and 3 in equal shares. The amount was also held liable to be paid jointly and severally by the respondents mainly by respondent No. 3 Insurance Company, who was held liable to indemnify the owners. 8 Feeling dis-satisfied with the aforesaid award, the claimants-appellants have preferred the instant appeal before this Court. 9 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and, have gone through the records of the case. 10 The main stress of the learned counsel for the appellant is that driver of the offending vehicle was holding a driving licence of Light Motor Vehicle but he was driving a passenger vehicle and on that account Insurance Company is not liable to pay the amount of compensation. Prayer has been made for acceptance of the appeal and for giving the recovery rights to the appellant. To support this contention, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon authority New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir and another, 2008(3) R.C.R.(Civil) 267 : 2008(4) R.A.J. 15 : 2009(1) AICJ 331 : 2008 ACJ 2161 and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Angad Kol and others, 2009(2) R.C.R.(Civil) 419 : 2009(2) R.A.J. 418 : 2009(1) AICJ 649 : 2009 ACJ 1411. Ltd. v. Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir and another, 2008(3) R.C.R.(Civil) 267 : 2008(4) R.A.J. 15 : 2009(1) AICJ 331 : 2008 ACJ 2161 and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Angad Kol and others, 2009(2) R.C.R.(Civil) 419 : 2009(2) R.A.J. 418 : 2009(1) AICJ 649 : 2009 ACJ 1411. 11 Learned counsel for the owner has submitted that above said objection was not specifically taken by the Insurance Company before the Tribunal and the same cannot be allowed to be taken for the first time in the appeal. It is contended that learned Tribunal in para No. 15 of the judgment relying upon judgment of Ashok Gangadhar Maratha v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 2000(1) R.C.R.(Civil) 437 : 2000 ACJ 139, Honble Supreme Court held that when it has not been proved that at the relevant time, there were goods in the vehicle, the Insurance Company is not absolved from the liability to indemnify the owner. 12 Learned counsel for the appellant has further relied upon authority National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Annappa Irappa Nasaria and others, 2008(1) R.C.R.(Civil) 848 : 2008(1) R.A.J. 413 : 2009(1) AICJ 218 : 2008 Volume (2) ACJ 721. On the strength of the same, it has been argued that Light Motor Vehicle cannot be a transport vehicle as the transport vehicle has been substituted by medium goods vehicle and heavy goods vehicle. The unladen weight of the offending vehicle was less than 7500kgs. and as such the driver was competent to drive the light motor vehicle, as per his licence. 13 I have considered the rival submissions made by both the sides and have gone through the records of the case. 14 In Section 2 Clause 21 of the Light Motor Vehicle has been described as under : "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 7500 kilograms;" 15 It has not been disputed during the course of arguments that vehicle involving the accident is Light Motor Vehicle. 16 The learned trial Court has relied upon authority Ashok Gangadhar Marathas case (supra) and held that Insurance company has not proved that at the relevant time, there were goods in the offending vehicle, so, the Insurance Company is liable. 17 The Honble apex court in National Insurance Co. 16 The learned trial Court has relied upon authority Ashok Gangadhar Marathas case (supra) and held that Insurance company has not proved that at the relevant time, there were goods in the offending vehicle, so, the Insurance Company is liable. 17 The Honble apex court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Annappa Irappa Nasaria and others case (supra) has categorically given finding that a driver, who has valid licence driving Light Motor Vehicle was authorized to drive light goods vehicle as well and the Insurance company is liable. 18 In authorities New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir and another and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Angad Kol and others case (supra) relied upon by the Insurance Company the admitted position was that vehicle was being used as goods transport vehicle whereas in the present case the Tribunal has held that Insurance company has failed to prove that goods were lying in the offending vehicle and so, in these circumstances, the above said authorities are distinguishable. 18A. In authority National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, 2004(2) R.C.R.(Civil) 114 : 2004 ACJ 1(S.C.), the three Honble Judges of the Apex Court in para 82 held as under :- "(82) Section 3 of the Act casts an obligation on a driver to hold an effective driving licence for the type of vehicle which he intends to drive. Section 10 of the act enables the Central government to prescribe forms of driving licenses for various categories of vehicles mentioned in sub- section (2) of the said section. The various types of vehicles described for which a driver may obtain a licence for one or more of them are : (a) motor cycle without gear; (b) motor cycle with gear; O invalid carriage; (d) light motor vehicle; (e) transport vehicle; (f) road-roller; and (g) motor vehicle of other specified description. The definition clause in section 2 of the act defines various categories of vehicles which are covered in broad types mentioned in sub-section (2) of section 10. They are `goods carriage, `heavy goods vehicle, `heavy passenger motor vehicle, `invalid carriage, light motor vehicle, `maxicab, medium goods vehicle, `medium passenger motor vehicle `motorcab, motor cycle, omnibus, `private service vehicle, `semi-trailer, `tourist vehicle, `tractor, trailer and `transport vehicle. In claims for compensation for accidents, various Kinds of breaches with regard to the conditions of driving licences arise for consideration before the Tribunal. In claims for compensation for accidents, various Kinds of breaches with regard to the conditions of driving licences arise for consideration before the Tribunal. A person possessing a driving licence for motor cycle without gear [sic. may be driving a vehicle], for which he has no licence. Cases may also arise where a holder of driving licence for `light motor vehicle is found to he driving a `maxicab, `motorcab or `omnibus for which he has no licence. In each case, on evidence led before the Claims Tribunal, a decision has to be taken whether the fact of the driver possessing licence for one type of vehicle but found driving another type of vehicle, was the main or contributory cause of accident. If on facts, it is found that the accident was caused solely because of some other unforeseen or intervening causes like mechanical failures and similar other causes having no nexus with the driver not possessing requisite type of licence, the insurer will not be allowed to avoid its liability merely for technical breach of conditions concerning driving licence." 19 In authority National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Annappa Irappa Nasaria and others case (supra) in para No. 16, the Honble Apex Court has held as under :- "(16) From what has been noticed hereinbefore, it is evident that the 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." 20 So, in view of the detailed discussion, the appeal is without any merit and the same stands dismissed. 21 A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance.