ORDER 14.5.2010 — This appeal by the Insurance Company is directed against the judgment/award dated 6.11.2009, passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Cuttack, in W.C. Case No. 9-D of 2008, awarding an amount of Rs. 3,58,798/- as compensation and direct¬ing the appellant to pay the same. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as the of¬fending vehicle was a Auto-rickshaw, which is a ‘transport vehi¬cle’ and admittedly the claimant-driver was holding a driving licence authorizing him to drive ‘light motor vehicle (non trans¬port)’, the same was not valid and effective and therefore the insurer was not liable to pay the compensation amount. In this regard, it is submitted that as the driving licence issued to the claimant-driver did not authorize him to drive a ‘transport vehicle’, the same was in violation of policy condition and therefore no liability could have been saddled on the present appellant, as the insurer of the offending vehicle. In this regard, reliance has been placed on a decision of the apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. -vrs.- Angad Kol and others, 2009(2) TAC 4(SC). It is further submitted that as the doctor examined on behalf of the insurer certified that due to the injuries sus¬tained, the claimant has suffered loss of earning capacity to the extent of 38%, the Commissioner erred in ignoring the same and accepting the version of the doctor examined on behalf of the claimant and assessing the loss of earning capacity at 70%. Accordingly, it is submitted that the assessment of the compensa¬tion amount is not proper and justified and in any case, there being violation of policy condition, the insurer is not liable to pay the compensation amount. On a perusal of the impugned award, it is seen that the insurer had raised the plea that the claimant-driver was possess¬ing a driving licence authorizing him to drive a ‘light motor vehicle (LMV)’ and as the offending vehicle was admittedly a Auto-rickshaw, which is a ‘transport vehicle’, the injured claim¬ant was not authorized to drive such a transport vehicle. On a perusal of the impugned award, it is seen that the insurer had raised the plea that the claimant-driver was possess¬ing a driving licence authorizing him to drive a ‘light motor vehicle (LMV)’ and as the offending vehicle was admittedly a Auto-rickshaw, which is a ‘transport vehicle’, the injured claim¬ant was not authorized to drive such a transport vehicle. The Commissioner has taken into consideration the submission made by the parties and has come to hold that as the Auto-rickshaw is a ‘light motor vehicle’ and as the injured driver was issued with a driving licence authorizing him to drive ‘light motor vehicle’, he was eligible to drive the offending Auto-rickshaw and therefore there was no violation of policy condi¬tion. Section 2(14) of the M.V. 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. The term “light motor vehicle”, as defined in Section 2(21) of the M.V. Act, 1988, 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. Section 2(23) of the M.V. Act defines “medium goods vehicle” to mean any goods carriage, other than a light motor vehicle or a heavy goods vehicle. A ‘transport vehicle’ has been defined under Section 2(47) of the M.V. Act as follows: “Transport vehicle” means a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle” Section 3 of the M.V. Act provides for necessity of driving licence, which reads as under: “(1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorizing him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle other than a motorcab or motor cycle hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under sub-section (2) of Section 75 unless his driving licence specifically entitled him so to do. (2) The conditions subject to which sub-section (1) shall not apply to a person receiving instructions in driving a motor vehicle shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Govern¬ment.” Section 10 of the M.V. Act deals with form and contents of licences to drive, which reads as under: “(1) Every learner’s licence and driving licence, except a driving licence issued under section 18, shall be in such form and shall contain such information as may be prescribed by the Central Government. (2) A learner’s licence or, as the case may be, driving licence shall also be expressed as entitling the holder to drive a motor vehicle of one or more of the following classes, namely:- (a) motor cycle without gear; (b) motor cycle with gear; (c) invalid carriage; (d) light motor vehicle; (e) transport vehicle; (i) road-roller (j) motor vehicle of a specified description.” On a reading of the aforesaid provisions clearly goes to show that the definition of a ‘light motor vehicle’, as given in Section 2(21) of the M.V. Act would also include a ‘transport vehicle’, whose gross vehicle weight does not exceed 7500 Kgs. It can apply only to a ‘light goods vehicle’ or a ‘light transport vehicle’. A ‘light goods vehicle’ having not been defined in the M.V. Act, the definition of ‘light motor vehicle’ clearly indi¬cates that it takes within its umbrage, both a transport vehicle and a non-transport vehicle, whose gross vehicle weight does not exceed 7500 Kgs. Therefore a ‘light motor vehicle’ can also mean a light passenger carriage vehicle and light goods carriage vehicle. In the present case, merely because the offending Auto-rickshaw had been constructed or adapted for use solely for carriage of goods, the same does cease to be a ‘light motor vehicle’. The use of the vehicle for carriage of goods does not take the offending Auto-rickshaw outside the definition of a ‘light motor vehicle’, which includes a ‘transport vehicle’, when the gross vehicle weight or unladen weight does not exceed 7500 Kgs. Moreover, the insurer has nowhere pleaded or proved that the offending Auto-rickshaw being a transport vehicle, was issued with a permit for carriage of goods, as required under Section 66 of the M.V. Act. as has been observed by the apex Court in the case of Ashok Gangadhar Maratha-vrs.- Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 1999 SC 3181 . Moreover, the insurer has nowhere pleaded or proved that the offending Auto-rickshaw being a transport vehicle, was issued with a permit for carriage of goods, as required under Section 66 of the M.V. Act. as has been observed by the apex Court in the case of Ashok Gangadhar Maratha-vrs.- Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 1999 SC 3181 . The aforesaid view has been subsequently reiterated by the apex Court in the case of Nagashetty -vrs.- United India Insur¬ance Co. Ltd., AIR 2001 SC 3356 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. -vrs.- Annappa Irappa Nesaria and others, AIR 2008 SC 1418 . Applying the principles of law as discussed above to the fact of the present case, I am of the considered view that as the claimant-driver was holding a driving licence authorizing him to drive a ‘light motor vehicle’ and admittedly the Auto-rickshaw comes within the definition of a ‘light motor vehicle’, the driving licence held by the claimant-driver was valid and effective and there was no violation of policy condition. Accordingly, the findings of the Commissioner in that regard cannot be faulted. Coming to the assessment of the compensation amount, it is seen that the Commissioner has taken into consideration the evidence of the treating physician (P.W.2), who had stated that the injured claimant had compound fracture of tibia and fibula left side. P.W.2 further opined that there was shortening of lower limb by 1/2 inch and considering the physical condition of the claimant, P.W.2 was of the view that the claimant was physi¬cally disabled to the extent of 60% and has lost his earning capacity to the extent of 70%, as a driver. The insurer examined its doctor as O.P.W.1, who on physical examination of the injured claimant, had observed as follows: “1) Stiffness of left knee with pain. 2) Stiffness of left ankle with pain. 3) He is unable to sit cross legged. 4) He is unable to squat properly. 5) There is shortening. 6) He limps.” Considering the physical condition of the injured claimant, O.P.W.1 assessed the loss of earning capacity of the claimant to the extent of 38%. 2) Stiffness of left ankle with pain. 3) He is unable to sit cross legged. 4) He is unable to squat properly. 5) There is shortening. 6) He limps.” Considering the physical condition of the injured claimant, O.P.W.1 assessed the loss of earning capacity of the claimant to the extent of 38%. The Commissioner has considered the medical evidence on record, including the opinion of the Doctors examined on behalf of the claimant and the insurer and has come to hold that the injured claimant had lost his earning capacity to the extent of 70%, as a driver, which is permanent in nature. Considering the findings of the Commissioner as given in the impugned award with regard to the quantum of compensation amount awarded and the basis on which the same has been arrived at, I feel, the interest of justice would be best served if the compen¬sation amount of Rs.3,58,798/- is modified and reduced to Rs.3,00,000/-, which is payable to the claimant, on which no interest is payable. The impugned award is modified to the said extent only. The Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Cuttack, is directed to disburse the modified compensation amount of Rs.3,00,000/- along with accrued interest thereon to the claim¬ant. The balance deposited amount along with accrued interest thereon shall be refunded to the appellant-Insurance Company. The F.A.O. is accordingly disposed of. FAO disposed of.