JUDGMENT : I.M. Quddusi, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the owner and driver of the Tractor against the impugned award dated 26-4-2008 passed by VII Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 69/2006 so far as it relates to quantum and fastening liability on the owner and driver as the Insurance Company has been exonerated from its liability to pay compensation. 2. Brief facts of the case as per the version of the claimant/injured are that on 3-6-2005 he was travelling between village Sursabandha and Shyamnagar by sitting in Tractor & Trolley bearing Regn. No. CG. 04-ZG/8392 and CG. 04-ZG/8393 respectively. On the way at about 11.30 p.m. when the said vehicle was being driven by appellant No. 2 Tarachand in a rash and negligent manner, the claimant injured who was sitting over the bags containing paddy in the trolley fell down and sustained various injuries/fractures on the body of his person due to which he became permanently disabled to the extent of 90%. The injured/claimant has filed claim petition u/S. 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 8,05,000/- on various heads. 3. The Tribunal has held that due to rash and negligent driving of the said Tractor and Trolley by appellant No. 2, the claimant fell down and became permanently disabled on account of grievous injuries/fractures sustained by him; there was breach of policy conditions and appellant No. 2 was not having valid and effective driving license. It has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 3,49,200/- which the claimant is entitled to receive from the non-applicants jointly and severally. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the records of the Tribunal. 5. The Tribunal has held that since driver of the said Tractor and Trolley was not having valid and effective driving license on the date of accident, the insurance company is not liable for payment of compensation. It is a matter of record that the driver of the Tractor and Trolley was having a driving liense to drive the Light Motor Vehicle as also motorcycle which was valid and effective on the date of accident. It is also admitted that the Tractor in question was meant for the use of agricultural purposes and its Registration Certificate was issued for the same purpose. It is also admitted that the Tractor in question was meant for the use of agricultural purposes and its Registration Certificate was issued for the same purpose. The insurance policy was also issued under farmer's package policy. The Insurance Company has examined Ashwin Kumar Awadhia as N.A.W.1, who was working as Assistant Grade-Ill in Regional Transport Office, Raipur. He has stated in his cross-examination that there is no mention of driving the Tractor, but the license of the Tractor-Trolley is made from the same register. A perusal of evidence of this witness shows that the permit was not especially required for the Tractor-Trolley when it is being used for agricultural purposes. At the time of accident, the trolley attached to the Tractor was containing agricultural produce that is paddy. 6. Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the Act") provides for necessity for permits. Sub-section (1) Section 66 is relevant here and quoted below : 66. Necessity for permits.- (1) No owner of a motor vehicle shall use or permit the use of the vehicle as a transport vehicle in any public place whether or not such vehicle is actually carrying any passengers or goods save in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or countersigned by a Regional or State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority authorizing him to use of the vehicle in that place in the manner in which the vehicle is being used : Provided that a stage carriage permit shall, subject to any conditions that may be specified in the permit, authorize the use of the vehicle as a contract carriage : Provided further that a stage carriage permit may, subject to any conditions that may be specified in the permit, authorize the use of the vehicle as a goods carriage either when -carrying passengers or not : Provided also that a goods carriage permit shall, subject to any conditions that may be specified in the permit, authorize the holder to use the vehicle for the carriage of goods for or in connection with a trade or business carried on by him. A bare reading of the above provisions would show that necessity of permit is only for transport vehicles and if there is no necessity of permit for the Tractor-Trolley meant for agricultural purpose, the same cannot be held to be a transport vehicle. 7. A bare reading of the above provisions would show that necessity of permit is only for transport vehicles and if there is no necessity of permit for the Tractor-Trolley meant for agricultural purpose, the same cannot be held to be a transport vehicle. 7. Now we have to consider whether the Tractor and Trolley come within the definition of LMV or not. "Light Motor Vehicle" has been defined in sub-section (21) of Section 2 of the Act which reads 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. Further, Rule 2 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 also deals with definitions. Sub-rule (b) and (c) of Rule 2 defines "agricultural tractor" and "agricultural trailer" as under : 2(b) "agricultural tractor" means any mechanically propelled 4 wheel vehicle designed to work with suitable implements for various field operations and/or trailers to transport agricultural materials. Agricultural tractor is a non-transport vehicle. 2(c) "agricultural trailer" means a trailer generally left uncovered with single/double axle construction which is coupled to an Agricultural Tractor by means of two hooks and predominantly used for transporting agricultural materials; 8. According to the RC, the unladen weight of the Tractor was 1680 kgs, and that of the Trolley was 1000. kgs'. Thus, the total unladen weight of Tractor-Trolley comes to 2680 kgs. Since the total unladen weight of both the Tractor Trolley is 2680 kilograms, the same is well within the prescribed limit i.e. 7500 kilograms. Therefore, in the instant case, the Tractor-Trolley comes within the purview of Light Motor Vehicles for which no permit endorsing the driver to drive the Tractor was required and as such, we hold that the driver of the Tractor was having valid and effective driving license on the date of accident to driver the vehicle i.e. LMV and there was no necessity of endorsement authorizing the driver especially to drive the Tractor or a transport vehicle. 9. In view of the above, we hold that the Claims Tribunal has committed manifest error of law in exonerating the insurance company/respondent No. 2 and fastening liability upon the appellants (owner and driver) to pay the compensation. 9. In view of the above, we hold that the Claims Tribunal has committed manifest error of law in exonerating the insurance company/respondent No. 2 and fastening liability upon the appellants (owner and driver) to pay the compensation. Therefore, we allow this appeal, set aside the findings with regard to issues No. 3 and 4 and direct that the owner and driver of the Tractor-Trolley in question, appellants herein, are exonerated from their liability to pay compensation and the Insurance Company/respondent No. 2 is liable to pay compensation. It will be open for the claimants to realize the amount of compensation from the Insurance Company. 10. At this stage, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that the Tribunal has imposed penal interest @ 9% per annum which is not sustainable. When the simple interest @ 6% has been granted, imposition of the penal interest @ 9% per annum after the stipulated period is not proper. Therefore, the penal interest mentioned in sub-para (2) of para 24 of the award is set aside. The claimant shall be entitled to get simple interest @ 6% per annum through out from the date of filing of the claim application till the payment is made. 11. In the result, the appeal is allowed. No order as to costs. 12. The amount deposited by the appellants shall be allowed to be withdrawn. However, if the same has already been disbursed to the claimant, it will be open for the appellants to realize from the Insurance Company.