Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—The service on respondent-claimant No.1 is dispensed with. The mater is heard on merits. 2. The appeal has been filed by the insurance company on the sole ground that the driver in the present case did not have the licence to drive the light motor vehicle and had the licence to drive a heavy motor vehicle only, therefore, the insurance company ought to have been exempt from the liability to indemnity the claim. Learned counsel in support of his arguments cited the judgment of Principal Seat of this Court in Qazi Atta Mohd. vs. Syed Fazal Ali & Ors.- 2004 ACJ 1012 . 3. Shri Sandeep Mathur, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the appeal and argued that the aforesaid judgment has been decided on the basis of mere presumption and because sub-section (1) of Section (7) of the Motor Vehicles Act itself provides that no person shall be granted a learner's licence to drive a transport vehicle unless he has held a driving licence to drive a light motor vehicle for at least one year. This thus implies that only if a person holds licence to drive a light motor vehicle then only he can become eligible for being granted driving licence for transport vehicle. Learned counsel argued that category of different vehicles in sub-section (2) of Section 10 does not override the provisions of Section 7. 4. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, I am not agree with the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondent-owner. Section 10 of course provides category of various motor vehicles, but then Section 7 specifically provides that only if a person holds the licence to drive a light motor vehicle at least for one year, then he can be granted a learner's licence to drive a transport vehicle. This clearly implies that if a person holds a licence to drive a transport vehicle i.e. heavy vehicle, he can also drive a light motor vehicle. 5. I therefore do not find any merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.