JUDGMENT Dr. Bhakthavatsala, J 1. The appellant-Insurance Company has preferred this appeal praying to set-aside the impugned judgment and award dated 17.11.2001 passed in MVC NO.1064/2000 on the file of MACT-IV(X), Bagalkot, in so far as saddling liability on the Insurance Company. 2. The facts leading to file this appeal in brief are as follows: The original respondent No.1 yalgurdappa had filed a claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act in M.V.C. No.1064/2000 against respondent No.2 herein and present appellant seeking compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/- towards personal injuries sustained by him in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 23.05.2000. It is the case of the respondent-claimant that on 23.05.2000 after completion of his work at Alamatti the claimant and other persons were travelling in an Auto –rickshaw bearing registration No.KA-29/3441 from Alamatti to Sutagundar. The driver of the Auto-rickshaw was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and as a result of which, he lost control over the Auto-rickshaw and it turned turtle near Desai Land on NH-13. The claimant sustained grievous injuries. 3. The respondent No.1/owner-cum-driver of the Auto-rickshaw entered appearance and filed written statement admitting that he was the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle and he had a valid driving licence to drive the vehicle. But he denied the averments of the claim petition that the accident occurred due to his rash and negligent driving of the vehicle and that the injuries sustained by the claimant are simple in nature. 4. The respondent No.2-Insurance Company filed written statement denying the averments of the claim petition. In para 8 of statement of objection, the Insurance Company has taken the contention that at the time of accident the driver of the Auto-rickshaw had not valid driving licence to drive the Auto-rickshaw. 5. The Tribunal framed in all four issues as follows: 1) Whether the petitioner proves that the accident in question has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the Auto-rickshaw bearing No.KA-29/3441 by its driver, i.e. respondent No.1 2) Whether the petitioner proves that he sustained injuries in the said accident in question? 3) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom? 4) What award or order? 6. In support of his case the claimant he got himself examined as PW-1 besides examining Dr. 3) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom? 4) What award or order? 6. In support of his case the claimant he got himself examined as PW-1 besides examining Dr. M.G.Kulkarni and Govindarao Sheshagirirao Desai as Pw-2 and Pw-3 and got marked Ex.P 1 to P-134. In rebuttal, the Insurance Company has got examined one Basavaraj Rudrappa Navalgund, Branch Manager, as DW-1. 7. The Tribunal on appreciation of the evidence placed on record answered Issue No.1 and 2 in the affirmative holding that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the Auto-rickshaw bearing registration No.KA-29/3441 by its driver/respondent No.1 and in that accident the claimant sustained injuries. In so far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 3,63,800/- holding that the claimant is not entitled to interest on Rs. 1,63,800/-namely the amount awarded towards loss of future income. The Tribunal awarded interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on Rs. 2,00,000/- from the date of petition will realization and allowed the claim petition partly, against the respondent/owner-cum-driver and insurer of the vehicle holding them jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. 8. The contention of the insurance Company in this appeal is that the Tribunal has erred in saddling the liability of the owner of the vehicle on the Insurance Company, though the respondent No.1 had no valid driving licence to drive the Auto-rickshaw which is a transport vehicle. During the course of the arguments Learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submits that as per the driving licence produced by the driver-cum-owner was entitled to drive a Light Motor Vehicle (Non-transport) but he was driving an Auto-rickshaw which is a transport vehicle. It is submitted that in the case of non-transport vehicle, licence will be given for a period of three years at a time but in the instant case licence was issued for a period of twenty years, and therefore, saddling the liability on the owner or the Insurance company may be set aside. Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company relies on a decision rendered in ORIENTAL INSURANCE Co. LTD., vs ANGAD KOL AND OTHERS. 9. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the respondent No.1/owner of the vehicle in question submits, that the respondent No. had a valid and effective driving licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle. Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company relies on a decision rendered in ORIENTAL INSURANCE Co. LTD., vs ANGAD KOL AND OTHERS. 9. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the respondent No.1/owner of the vehicle in question submits, that the respondent No. had a valid and effective driving licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle. It is further contended that the maximum weight of Light Motor is 7,500 Kgs., whereas the Auto-rickshaw is less than 7,500 Kgs. He relies on the decision in UNITED INDIA INSURANCE Co. LTD., vs. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA AND OTHERS to contend that there is no merit in the appeal and the same be dismissed. 10. We have perused the records of the Tribunal. There is no dispute about the findings recorded by the tribunal on Issue Nos. 1 and 2 and quantum of compensation awarded. The only point that arises for our consideration is: Whether the tribunal justified in saddling the liability of the owner, on the Insurance Company? 11. Our answer to the above point is as per the final order. 12. We have perused the driving licence of respondent No.2 which is valid to drive Light Motor vehicle from 02.12.1996 to 01.12.2016. The word NT suffixed in the licence which is contrary to the definition under Section 2(21) of the Act. 13. In fact Section 10 of M.V. Act deals with form and contents of licences to drive and has categorized seven classes of vehicles namely (i) Motor Cycle without gear, (ii) Motor Cycle with gear, (iii) Invalid carriage, (iv) light Motor Vehicle, (v) Transport Vehicle, (vi) Road roller, (vii) Motor vehicle of a specified description. The said specification is by virtue of amendment, effective from 14.11.1994 by which the transport vehicle as a class of vehicle has been inserted and a) Medium goods vehicle, b) Medium Passenger Motor Vehicle, c) Heavy goods vehicle, and d) Heavy Passenger Motor vehicle were deleted. Therefore, after the amendment the classification of ‘Light Motor Vehicle is continued and is independent of transport vehicle. “Transport Vehicle” is a substitution for the aforementioned four classes of vehicles, which are deleted from the Section. It becomes clear that there is no inclusion of light motor vehicle in the category of transport vehicle. Therefore, after the amendment the classification of ‘Light Motor Vehicle is continued and is independent of transport vehicle. “Transport Vehicle” is a substitution for the aforementioned four classes of vehicles, which are deleted from the Section. It becomes clear that there is no inclusion of light motor vehicle in the category of transport vehicle. The amendment to the class of transport vehicle pursuant to the amendment of Section 10 was carried out in the Motor Vehicles Rules with effect from 28.03.2001, particularly Rule 14 read with from 4, whereby category of transport vehicle was inserted. 14. Taking note of the said amendment, the Apex Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE Co. LTD., vs. ANNAPPA IRAPPA ALIAS NESARIA AND OTHERS, held that the aforesaid amendment carried out to the 1989 Rules have all prospective operation that is with effect from 28.03.2001 and therefore in the said case when the driver of the vehicle had a licence issued prior to the said date and when the accident occurred on 09.12.1999 it was held that the category of transport vehicle could not be read into the said license and accordingly dismissed the appeal of the Insurance Company. The said decision is referred to in the case of ANGAD KOL’S CASE, supra and distinguished. 15. In the instant case also the respondent No.2 had a valid driving licence to drive the Light Motor Vehicle and the licence was issued prior to 28.03.2001 i.e. on 01.02.1996. At the relevant point of time, a person who was competent to drive a Light Motor Vehicle was also competent to drive a Auto-rickshaw if its gross vehicle weight was less than 7,500 kgs. The decision cited by the Learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company in ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., vs, ANGAD KOLAND OTHERS (SUPRA), can be distinguished in this way that the Respondent No.2’s driving licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle is w.e.f 02.12.1996 that is, prior to amendment to M.V. Rules, In the case of ANGAD KOL’S CASE license was issued on 31.10.2004 and the Insurance Company’s appeal was allowed. Therefore, the aforesaid decision cited by the Learned Counsel for the appellant is of no avail. 16. The other decision relied upon by the counsel for the appellant is in the case of NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., vs. ROSHANBEN RAHEMANSHAFAKIR AND ANOTHER (ROSHANBEN’S CASE). Therefore, the aforesaid decision cited by the Learned Counsel for the appellant is of no avail. 16. The other decision relied upon by the counsel for the appellant is in the case of NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., vs. ROSHANBEN RAHEMANSHAFAKIR AND ANOTHER (ROSHANBEN’S CASE). In the said case also the license was issued on 13.05.2004 for a period of 20 years and the driver of the offending vehicle had license to drive a three wheeler which was not meant to be used to drive as a transport vehicle but he was driving a goods carrying public carrier, an Auto-rickshaw delivery van which is a commercial vehicle (transport vehicle) and was not being used for private purposes. A question arose as to whether the driver possessed a valid driving license and the Insurance Company is liable. The Apex Court held it in the negative. But in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, directed the Insurance Company to satisfy the award and recover the amount from the owner. The facts in the said case are clearly distinguishable as the licence was issued subsequent to 28.03.2001 and the Apex Court noticed that the provisions of the Act undergone a change by referring to the decision in the NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., vs ANNAPPAIRAPPA NESARAGI AND OTHERS, (SUPRA). In the instant case licence was issued on 02.12.1996, i.e prior to the amendment made to the Motor Vehicle Rules, particularly in Form No. 4 We are of the considered view that the case is covered by the decision in NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., vs ANNAPPAIRAPPA ALIAS NESARIA AND OTHERS (SUPRA). The decisions of the Apex Court in ANGAD KOL’S CASE and ANGAD KOL’S are not applicable to the facts of the present case. 17. Hence, the Tribunal was justified in holding the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the respondent No.2/owner cum driver of Auto-rickshaw. There is no merit in this appeal. In the result appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed. 18. Registry is directed to transmit the statutory amount, if in deposit, to the Tribunal.