JUDGMENT : Beingaggrieved by the order dated 27-8-2009 passed by MACT, Ratlam ,in Claim Case No. 02/2009, whereby the claim petition filed by respondent Nos.2 to 4 for compensation on account of death of Ambalal @ Amrit lal who was husbandof respondent No. 1, son of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and father of respondentNo. 4 was allowed and compensation of Rs . 3,32,000/-was awarded and the respondent No. 5 was exonerated on the ground thatappellant No. 2 who was the driver was not possessing the valid driving licence , the present appeal has been filed. Shortfacts of the case are that respondent Nos. 1 to 4 filed a claim petitionalleging that on 12-9-2004 Ambalal was sleeping in the factory premises, at that timeappellant No. 2, who was driver of crane No . HR-38-P-1446drove the crane rashly and negligently, with the result, Ambalal died. It was alleged that appellant No. 1 is owner and respondent No. 5 is theInsurance Company. The claim petition was contested by respondent No. 5 onvarious grounds including on the ground that appellant No. 2 was not possessingthe valid driving licence . It was prayed that claimpetition be dismissed against respondent No. 5. After framing of issues andrecording of evidence learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition by awardingcompensation of Rs . 3,32,000/- and exoneratedrespondent No. 5 on the ground that appellant No. 2 was not possessing thevalid driving licence , against which the presentappeal has been filed. LearnedCounsel for appellants submits that impugned award whereby respondent No. 5 hasbeen exonerated, is illegal and deserves to be setaside. Along with the appeal an application under Order XLI Rule 27, CPC hasbeen filed along with certificate dated 15-10-2010 issued by the LicensingAuthority, Indore , wherein it is stated that crane isa commercial vehicle like a tractor, hence for driving cranes only heavyvehicles licence is required and no other special licence is required for driving the cranes. It is prayedthat in the facts and circumstances the application and also the appeal beallowed and the finding whereby respondent No. 5 has been exonerated, bequashed. LearnedCounsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 submits that he has no objection in allowingthe appeal and also the application. LearnedCounsel for respondent No. 5 opposes the application and submits that documentsneed to be proved. LearnedCounsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 submits that he has no objection in allowingthe appeal and also the application. LearnedCounsel for respondent No. 5 opposes the application and submits that documentsneed to be proved. It is submitted that since offending vehicle was a crane, therefore, learned Tribunal has rightly heldthat requires special type of licence under Section10 of Motor Vehicles Act. It is submitted that appeal filed by the appellantshas no merit and same be dismissed. Section 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act deals with the form andcontents of licences to drive. Sub-section (1)reads as under : - "Everylearner'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 prescribedby the Central Government." Sub-section(2) lays down : - "Alearner's licence or, as the case may be, driving licence shall also be expressed as entitling the holder todrive 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) medium goods vehicle; (f) medium passenger motor vehicle; (g) heavy goods vehicle; (h) heavy passenger motor vehicle; ( i ) road-roller; (j) motor vehicle of a specific description." Fromperusal of class of vehicle mentioned under sub-section (2) of Section 10, itis evident that crane is not defined as a separate category of motor vehicleand it is only road-roller which has been defined as a separate category ofroad-roller. Inexercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (4) of Section 41 of the MotorVehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), the Central Government has specified the typesof vehicles mentioned in column (2) of the Table below as the type in respectof motor vehicles specified in the corresponding entry in column (1) thereoffor the purpose of sub-section (4):- S. No . Inexercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (4) of Section 41 of the MotorVehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), the Central Government has specified the typesof vehicles mentioned in column (2) of the Table below as the type in respectof motor vehicles specified in the corresponding entry in column (1) thereoffor the purpose of sub-section (4):- S. No . Motor Vehicles Type of motor vehicles Motor vehicles Type of motor vehicle (1) (2) (3) (4) (1) Motor Cycle Motorcycle scooter moped Motorised cycle Light motor vehicle Motorised cycle rickshaw Invalid carriage 3 wheeler (2) Light motor vehicle Three wheelers Passenger vehicle Auto rickshaw Tempo Goods carriage Delivery van 4 wheeler passenger vehicle (3) Light motor vehicle Motor car Jeep Jeep stage carriage Taxi Maxi cab Ambulance Station wagon Invalid carriage van 4 wheeler goods carriage Delivery van Truck Fork lift Postal van Mobile canteen Mobile post office Mobile clinic Medium and heavy motor vehicle Campers van Camping trailer/House trailer Trackless trolley coach Double-decker bus Goods carriage Animal ambulance Crane Truck Itis true that documents which are filed by the appellants before this Courtought to have been filed by the appellants before the learned Tribunal itself,however since the document which has been filed is a notification and acertificate issued by the RTO, therefore, the application filed by the appellantsis allowed subject to cost of Rs . 25,000/- whichshall be payable to respondent No. 1. From perusal of record, it is evidencethat in the written statement filed by the appellants, nothing has been statedabout the licence and in the written statement filedby respondent No. 5, no specific plea was taken that respondent No. 2 was not possessing the valid driving licence .On the contrary, plea was taken that offending vehicle was not insured withrespondent No. 5. However, learned Tribunal framed issue to the effect whetherrespondent No. 2 was possessing the valid driving licence for driving the crane. Since no evidence wasadduced by the respondent No. 5 to avoid the liability and keeping in view thenotification which has been filed by appellants before this Court and thecertificate issued along with the application which has been allowed, thisCourt is of the view a case of remand is made out. Inview of this, appeal filed by the appellants is allowed. The impugned award sofar as it relates to the findings of exoneration of respondent No. 5 isconcerned, is set aside. Inview of this, appeal filed by the appellants is allowed. The impugned award sofar as it relates to the findings of exoneration of respondent No. 5 isconcerned, is set aside. Case is remanded with a direction to the learnedTribunal to redecide the issue whether the driver ofthe offending vehicle was possessing valid licence or not and whether the Insurance Company is liablefor payment of compensation or not. Partiesare directed to remain present before the learned Tribunal on 18-10-2011. LearnedTribunal is directed to redecide the aforesaid issuesafter recording of evidence of both the parties if any. So far as the amountdeposited by the appellants is concerned, the same be paid to respondent Nos. 1 to 4 subject to final award relating to the liabilityof appellants and respondent No. 5. Withthe aforesaid, appeals stands disposed of.