JUDGMENT S.C. PARIJA, J. — This appeal by the owner of the vehicle (insured) is directed against the judgment/award dated 22.01.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-IV, Bhadrak, in MAC No.54 of 2005, holding the owner-appellant to have violated the policy condition and is therefore liable to indemnify the loss and accordingly directing the insurer to pay the compensation amount, with the right to recover the same from the owner. 2. Learned counsel for the owner-appellant submitted that as the offending vehicle is a Auto-rickshaw Delivery Van and the driver had a driving licence, authorising him to drive a Auto-rickshaw, the said driving licence was valid and effective at the time of the accident and therefore, there was no violation of policy condition. In this regard, it was submitted that as the evidence on affidavit filed by the owner-appellant clearly re¬vealed that the offending Auto-rickshaw had a unladen weight of 470 kgs and the driver Prasanta Muduli had a valid driving li¬cence bearing D.L. No.12361/04-05, issued by the Licensing Au¬thority, Cuttack, authorizing him to drive a Auto-rickshaw only, learned Tribunal erred in holding that the said driving licence did not authorize the driver to drive the offending vehicle and that the driver had no valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle. It was accordingly submitted that as the driving licence was issued in respect of a Auto-rickshaw and admittedly the offending vehicle was a Auto-rickshaw Delivery Van bearing No.OR-05-U/7812, which is a light motor vehicle, the said driving licence was valid and effective and therefore the find¬ings of the learned Tribunal is erroneous and illegal. 3. In support of the aforesaid contention, learned counsel for the owner-appellant has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ashok Gangadhar Maratha v. Oriental Insur¬ance Co. Ltd., AIR 1999 SC 3181 , wherein the Hon’ble Court came to find as under : “For a vehicle to be a transport vehicle, it musts be a goods carriage which in turn means any motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use solely for the carriage of goods or when not so constructed or adapted when used for the carriage of goods. We have the definitions of “heavy goods vehicles” and “medium goods vehicle”. There is no definition of “light goods vehicle”. In¬stead the definition is of “light motor vehicle”. We have the definitions of “heavy goods vehicles” and “medium goods vehicle”. There is no definition of “light goods vehicle”. In¬stead the definition is of “light motor vehicle”. If we apply the definition of a “light motor vehicle” as given in clause (21) of Section 2 of the Act to mean a “transport vehicle” in turn means a “good carriage” then we have nowhere the definition of a “light motor vehicle” without it being a “goods carriage”. Section 2 of the Act begins with the words ‘unless in this Act the context otherwise requires”. We have, therefore, to give a meaningful interpretation to “light motor vehicle” as given in clause (21). Clause (e) of Rule 2 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 defines “non-transport vehicle” to mean a motor vehicle which is not a transport vehicle (clause (e) renumbered as clause (h) by 1993 Amendment to Rules). This definition would, therefore, take out of the definition of “transport vehicle” as given in clause (21) light motor vehicles which are not goods carriage.” Accordingly, the Hon’ble Court proceeded to hold as follows : “To reiterate, since a vehicle cannot be used as transport vehicle on a public road unless there is a permit issued by the Regional Transport Authority for that purpose, and since in the instant case there is neither a pleading to that effect by any party nor is there any permit on record, the vehicle in question, would remain a light motor vehicle.” 4. Learned counsel has further relied upon a subsequent decision of the Apex Court in the case of Nagashetty v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 2001 SC 3356 , wherein it has been observed as under : “xx xx xx Undoubtedly under Section 10 a licence is granted to drive specific categories of motor vehicles. The question is whether merely because a trailer was attached to the tractor and the tractor was used for carrying goods, the licence to drive a tractor becomes in effective. If the argument of Mr. The question is whether merely because a trailer was attached to the tractor and the tractor was used for carrying goods, the licence to drive a tractor becomes in effective. If the argument of Mr. S.C. Sharda is to be accepted then every time an owner of a private car, who has a licence to drive a light motor vehicle, attaches a roof carrier to his car or a trailer to his car and carries goods thereon, the light motor vehicle would become a transport vehicle and the owner would be deemed to have no licence to drive that vehicle. It would lead to absurd results. Merely because a trail¬er is added either to a tractor or to a motor vehicle by itself does not make that tractor or motor vehicle a transport vehicle. The tractor or motor vehicle remains a tractor or motor vehicle. If a person has a valid driving licence to drive a tractor or a motor vehicle he continues to have a valid licence to drive that tractor or motor vehicle even if a trailer is attached to it and some goods are carried in it. In other words a person having a valid driving licence to drive a particular category of vehicles does not become disabled to drive that vehicle merely because a trailer is added to that vehicle.” 5. Further reliance has been placed on another decision of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and others, AIR 2004 SC 1531 , where in the Hon’ble Court observed as under : “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 Central Gov¬ernment to prescribe forms of driving licences for various cate¬gories of vehicles mentioned in Sub-section (20) of 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, (c) invalid carriage, (d) light motor vehicle, (e) transport vehicle, (f) road roller and (g) motor vehicle of other specified description. The defini¬tion 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. The defini¬tion 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’, ‘maxi-cab’, ‘medium goods vehicle’, ‘medium passenger motor vehicle’, ‘motor-cab’, ‘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. A person possessing a driving licence for ‘motor cycle without gear’, for which he has no licence. Cases may also arise where a holder of driving li¬cence for ‘light motor vehicle’ is found to be driving a ‘maxi-cab’, ‘motor-car’ or ‘omnibus’ for which he has no licence. In each case on evidence led before the Tribunal, a deci¬sion 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 accident was caused solely because of some other unforeseen or intervening causes like mechanical failures and similar other causes having no nexus with 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.” 6. Learned counsel has also relied upon the decision in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Annappa Irapa Nesaria and others, AIR 2008 SC 1418 , wherein the Hon’ble Court came to hold as under : “From what has been noticed herein before, it is evident that 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 authorized to drive a light goods vehicle as well.” 7. 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 authorized to drive a light goods vehicle as well.” 7. Learned counsel for the insurer-respondent No.3 while supporting the impugned award, has forcefully submitted that as the offending vehicle was an Auto-rickshaw Delivery Van and was registered as a ‘transport vehicle’ and was insured as a goods carrying commercial vehicle, the driving licence held by the accused driver, which authorized him to drive a Auto-rickshaw only, was not valid and effective, which was in violation of the policy condition and therefore the owner is liable to indemnify the loss. In this regard, learned counsel submits that as the offending vehicle was a Auto-rickshaw Delivery Van which is a ‘transport vehicle, meant for carriage of goods only and the driver did not possess a driving licence authorizing him to drive such a ‘transport vehicle’, the findings of the learned Tribunal given in the impugned award cannot be faulted. 8. In support of her aforesaid submission, learned counsel for insurer has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Prabhu Lal, AIR 2008 SC 614 , wherein the Hon’ble Court came to hold as follows : “The matter can be looked from another angle also. Section 14 referred to above, provides for currency of licence to drive motor vehicles. Sub-section (2) thereof expressly enacts that a driving licence issued or renewed under the Act shall, “in the case of a licence to drive a transport vehicle, be effective for a period of three years”. It also states that “in the case of any other licence, if the person obtaining the licence, either origi¬nally or on renewal thereof, had not attained the age of fifty years on the date of issue or, as the case may be, renewal there¬of, be effective for a period of twenty years from the date of such issue or renewal”. It is thus clear that if a licence is issued or renewed in respect of a transport vehicle, it can be done only for a period of three years. It is thus clear that if a licence is issued or renewed in respect of a transport vehicle, it can be done only for a period of three years. But, in case of any other vehicle, such issuance or renewal can be for twenty years provid¬ed the person in whose favour licence issued or renewed had not attained the age of 50 years. In the present case, the licence was renewed on November 17, 1995 up to November 16, 2015 i.e. for a period of twenty years. From this fact also, it is clear that the licence was in respect of ‘a motor vehicle other than the transport vehicle’.” 9. Learned counsel has also relied upon a subsequent decision of the Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd v. Roshan Ben Rahemensha Fakir and another, AIR 2008 SC 226, where in a similar case, the Hon’ble Court has come to hold that as the Auto-rickshaw Delivery Van was a transport vehicle and the driving licence issued to the driver of the said vehicle authorized him to drive a three wheeler, the said licence was not meant for driving a transport vehicle and therefore the insurer is not liable. The observation of the Hon’ble Court is as follows : “Section 10 of the Act provides for classes of the driving licence. Different classes of vehicle have been defined in differ¬ent provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. The ‘transport vehicle’ is defined in Section 2(47) of the Act to mean a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle. We have noticed herein before the provi¬sions of Sub-section (4) of Section 41. We have also noticed the notification issued by the Central Government in this behalf. The said notification clearly postulates that a three wheeled vehicle for transport of passengers or goods comes within the purview of class 5 of the table appended thereto. The licence granted in favour of the said Salim Amad bhai goes to show that the same was granted for a vehicle other than the transport vehicle. It was valid from 13.05.2004 to 12.05.2024. The licence granted in favour of the said Salim Amad bhai goes to show that the same was granted for a vehicle other than the transport vehicle. It was valid from 13.05.2004 to 12.05.2024. Section 14(2)(a) provides that a driving licence issued or renewed under the Act shall, in case of a licence to drive a transport vehicle will be effective for a period of three years whereas in the case of any other vehicle it can be issued or renewed for a period of 20 years from the date of issuance or renewal. The fact that the licence was granted for a period of 20 years, thus, clearly shows that Salim Amadbhai, driver of the vehicle, was not granted a valid driving licence for driving a transport vehicle.” 10. In the present case, with regard to the liability to pay the compensation amount, learned Tribunal has come to the following findings: “The insurance policy Ext.B undisputely (sic. undisputedly) covers the date of incident (sic. accident). The driving licence as seen from the document filed by O.P. No.2 vide Ext.A-1 the policy condition. As per the condition the driver was duly au¬thorized to drive Auto Rickshaw and not the offending vehicle and the driver has no valid and effective licence to drive the of¬fending vehicle. So the owner O.P. No.1 has violated the policy condition and liable to indemnify the loss as the D.L. of the driver is a fake one. The insurer in view of the statutory obli¬gation must first compensate retaining right to recover the same from the owner or from the insured.” 11. Admittedly, the offending vehicle No.OR-05-U/7812, is a Auto-rickshaw Delivery Van, which was registered as a transport vehicle, having a unladen weight of 470 Kgs and laden weight of 995 Kgs. The insurance policy issued in respect of the said vehicle describes it as a goods carrying commercial vehicle and was valid from 25.5.2005 to 24.5.2006, covering the date of accident, which took place on 15.6.2005. The driving licence issued to the driver Prasanta Muduli authorized him to drive a Auto-rickshaw only, which was valid from 12.01.2005 to 11.01.2025 (NT). 12. 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. 12. 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”. 13. 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 motor cab 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 entitles 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.” 14. 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 of 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; (f) road-roller; (j) motor vehicle of a specified description.” 15. 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 vehi¬cle. 16. 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 no where pleaded or proved that the offending Auto-rickshaw Delivery Van being a transport vehicle, was issued with a permit for carriage of goods, as required under Section 66 of the M.V. Act. 17. Applying the principles of law as discussed above to the facts of the present case, I am of the considered view that as the driver of the offending Auto-rickshaw Delivery Van was holding a driving licence authorizing him to drive a Auto-rickshaw, which is admittedly a ‘light motor vehicle’, the same was valid and effective and their was no violation of policy condition. 18. For the foregoing reasons, the findings of the learned Tribunal holding the owner of the vehicle liable to pay the compensation amount and directing the insurer to pay the same, with liberty to recover from the owner-appellant is set aside. The Insurance Company-respondent No.3 is held liable to pay the compensation amount. The MACA is accordingly allowed. MACA allowed.