JUDGMENT : Dev Darshan Sud, J. Both these appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment as they arise out of the same judgment of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Kangra at Dharamshala. FAO No. 410 of 2008 has been instituted by the Insurance Company which was the third respondent before the learned Tribunal below and FAO No. 417 of 2008 has been instituted by Man Singh, owner of the vehicle, who was respondent No. 2 before the trial Court. 2. The petitioners-respondents Jamna Devi is wife of the deceased Raj Kumar, who died in the accident, Akash Kumar minor son and Baby Roshni minor daughter, Amar Bahadur, father and Savitri, mother of the deceased. The claimants have pleaded that the deceased was a driver and was getting a salary of Rs. 3500/- per month and in addition to it, he was also getting Rs. 50/- per day as allowance for meals etc. from his employer. On 24.09.2004, he was traveling in the accidented vehicle No.HP-45-0991 which was being driven by respondent No.1 Ajay Kumar towards Saach. When they reached near post office, Killar at about 8.30 P.M., the driver lost control over the vehicle as he was driving it in a rash and negligent manner as a result of which the vehicle rolled down resulting in fatal injuries and Raj Kumar died on the spot. Respondent No.1 contested the petition on the ground of maintainability etc. He admitted that FIR No. 21 of 2004, dated 24.9.2004 was infact registered, but he denied any involvement in wrong doing. Respondent No. 2 did not put in appearance and was proceeded against ex-parte. Respondent No.3 Insurance Company has contested the petition on a number of grounds including the fact that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger and the Insurance Company was not liable to pay any compensation. 3. The learned Tribunal settled seven issues; the vital issue for decision being (a) as to whether the vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner which resulted in the accident of the vehicle and ultimate death of the deceased, (b) the quantum of compensation and (c) whether the deceased was traveling as a gratuitous passenger. 4. 3. The learned Tribunal settled seven issues; the vital issue for decision being (a) as to whether the vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner which resulted in the accident of the vehicle and ultimate death of the deceased, (b) the quantum of compensation and (c) whether the deceased was traveling as a gratuitous passenger. 4. On the evidence on record, on the first issue the learned Court found that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1, but his version in the witness box when he appeared as RW-1 was contrary to what he has pleaded. On the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal held the issue of rash and negligent driving in favour of claimants that is to say that the vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and that the death of Raj Kumar was a direct result of such driving. On the evidence on record, the respondents-claimants were granted a sum of Rs. 5,85,000/- on account of compensation. 5. Turning to issue No.4, which dealt with the fact as to whether respondent No.1 was possessed of a valid driving licence or not, the Court holds that vide Ex.RW-1/A he was authorized to drive light transport vehicle. Adverting to RW-1/B, which was the insurance policy, the Court finds that the cubic capacity of the vehicle is 8000 Kilograms. It is also evident from the certificate of fitness placed on record being Ex.RW-1/C showing the gross vehicle weight as 8000 Kg. In these circumstances, the learned Tribunal holds that the driver was not possessed of a valid driving licence as the vehicle could not be classed as such as defined under the Motor Vehicles Act. The other crucial issue being as to whether the deceased was traveling as a gratuitous passenger, the Court holds that this has not been argued or pressed for decision. Respondent No.1 also admitted that he was traveling in the vehicle as a labourer/helper. Issue No.6, dealing with the insurance policy, has also not been pressed and it was held that the vehicle in question was insured with the Oriental Insurance company Private Limited and an award was accordingly made with a direction that the amount awarded shall first be satisfied by respondent No. 3 Insurance Company, thereafter it could be recovered from respondent No. 2, the owner of the offending vehicle. 6. The owner is now in appeal and challenges the apportionment of liability on the ground that the driver was possessed of a valid driving licence. 7. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ashok Gangadhar Maratha Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (1999) 6 SCC 620 , holds:- 10. Definition of "light motor vehicle" as given in clause (21) of Section 2 of the Act can apply only to a "light goods vehicle" or a "light transport vehicle". A "light motor vehicle" otherwise has to be covered by the definition of "motor vehicle" or "vehicle" as given in clause (28) of Section 2 of the Act. A light motor vehicle cannot always mean a light goods carriage. Light motor vehicle can be non-transport vehicle as well. 11. 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. The respondent also does not say that any permit was granted to the appellant for plying the vehicle as a transport vehicle u/s 66 of the Act. Moreover, on the date of accident, the vehicle was not carrying any goods, and thought it could be said to have been designed to be used as a transport vehicle or goods carrier, it cannot be so held on account of the statutory prohibition contained in Section 66 of the Act. (p-3184) 8. He then urges that the vehicle in question, involved in the present case, is to be treated as a light transport vehicle for which purpose he relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Annappa lrrappa Nesaria alias Nesarach and Others (2009) 3 SCC 464. In particular, learned Counsel refers to paragraphs-13 and 14 of the judgment which read:- 13. Section 2(21) defines 'light motor vehicle' and Section 2(23) defines 'medium goods vehicle' as under: 2.(21) '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. Section 2(21) defines 'light motor vehicle' and Section 2(23) defines 'medium goods vehicle' as under: 2.(21) '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. (23) 'medium goods vehicle' means any goods carriage other than a light motor vehicle or a heavy goods vehicle. 14. Section 3 of the Act is in the following terms: 3. Necessity for driving licence.--(1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorising him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle other than a motorcab 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. (p-467) 9. Lastly, reliance is placed upon the judgment of this Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Dashoda Devi and Others, (2010) ACJ 2207. In particular he submits that since the weight of Swraj Mazda vehicle, (which is also the vehicle involved in the present case), has been held to be a light motor vehicle. He emphasis that this is the decision of the Court holding:- 28. In the present case, the vehicle in question is Swraj Mazda, which was a light motor vehicle as covered under definition clause 2(21) of the Act, as the unladen weight of the vehicle did not exceed 7500 kg. The Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd., v. Annappa Irappa Nesaria 2008 ACJ 721, while considering the unamended conditions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder held that a 'light goods carriage' having not been defined in the Act, the definition of 'light motor vehicle' clearly indicates that it takes within its umbrage both a transport vehicle and a non-transport vehicle. The Supreme Court examined the provisions of Section 2(16), 2(23) and Section 3 of the Act and the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. (p-2211) What I find from the evidence on record in the present case is that the gross laden weight of the vehicle is 8000 Kg. Merely because the vehicle is a Swaraj Mazda will not attract the precedent cited. 10. (p-2211) What I find from the evidence on record in the present case is that the gross laden weight of the vehicle is 8000 Kg. Merely because the vehicle is a Swaraj Mazda will not attract the precedent cited. 10. There is no dispute with the proposition as cited above as it only reiterates the statutory enactment. On the first two authorities, I find that the facts being entirely different and in any event Annapa's case reinforces the statutory provision. Adverting to the definition of 'light motor vehicle', as defined under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') 'gross vehicle weight' has been defined in Section 2(15) as: 2(15) "gross vehicle weight" means in respect of any vehicle the total weight of the vehicle and load certified and registered by the registering authority as permissible for that vehicle 2(21) "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 [7,500] kilograms. 2(24) "medium passenger motor vehicle" means any public service vehicle or private service vehicle, or educational institution bus other than a motor cycle, invalid carriage, light motor vehicle or heavy passenger motor vehicle. 11. The definitions extracted above are clear that is to say that the gross weight of the vehicle should not exceed 7,500 kilograms that would be apparent and evident from reading definitions as extracted above. This Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Rajeev Verma and Others III (2006) ACC 197, holds:- 5. The main question to be decided is whether the driver had a valid driving licence or not. Photocopy of registration certificate of the vehicle has been proved on record as Ex.R-4. It shows that the vehicle was registered as MGV (Medium Goods Vehicle). The gross vehicle weight or the registered laden weight of the vehicle is shown as 8770 kilograms. Light Motor Vehicle is defined in Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as follows : 2(21)"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. Light Motor Vehicle is defined in Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as follows : 2(21)"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. Medium goods vehicle is defined in Section 2(23) of the Act as follows: 2(23)"medium goods vehicle" means any goods carriage other than a light motor vehicle or a heavy goods vehicle. Heavy goods vehicle has been defined in Section 2(16) of the Act as follows: 2(16) "heavy goods vehicle" means any goods carriage the gross vehicle weight of which, or a tractor or a road-roller the unladen weight of either of which, exceeds 12,000 kilograms. 8. Mr. Harish Bahl learned Counsel for the appellant has placed great reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in case NIC v. Swaran Singh and others (supra). He has referred to paras 36, 37, 38, 81 and 82 of the judgment. As far as paras 36 to 38 are concerned, they mainly deal with the words 'effective licence' as used in Section 3 of the Act and 'duly licenced' as used in Section 149(2) of the Act. Paras 81 and 81 of the judgment read as follows: 81. Section 10 of the Act provides for forms and contents of licences to drive. The licence has to be granted in the prescribed form. Thus, a licence to drive a light motor vehicle would entitle the holder to drive the vehicle falling within that class of description. 82. 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 Government to prescribe the forms of driving licences for various categories of vehicles mentioned in sub Section (2) of the 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 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 definition 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', 'maxicab,' 'medium goods vehicle', 'medium passenger motor vehicle', 'motorcab', 'motor cycle', 'omnibus', 'private service vehicle', 'semitrailer', '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 holder of driving licence for 'light motor vehicle' is found to be driving a 'maxicab', 'motorcab', or omnibus for which he has no licence. In each case on evidence led before the Claims Tribunal, a decision 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. 10. A bare reading of these provisions especially Section 5 of the Act makes it absolutely clear that it is the responsibility of the owner to ensure that he does not permit any person who does not have an effective driving licence as provided u/s 3 of the Act to drive the vehicle. In case the contention of Mr. Bahl is accepted, the result would be to encourage people to flout the provisions of law, especially Section 5 of the Act. In case the contention of Mr. Bahl is accepted, the result would be to encourage people to flout the provisions of law, especially Section 5 of the Act. The observations of the Apex Court made in para 82 quoted above have to be read in the light of the provisions of Sections 3 and 5 and Section 149 of the Act. In my opinion what the Apex Court held was that if on the basis of the evidence led before the Tribunal it is of the view that the accident was caused solely because of some other unforeseen or intervening causes like mechanical failure or such like causes having no connection whatsoever with the driving of the vehicle or type of licence held by the driver then the Insurance Company would not be entitled to avoid its liability. There can be instances where an accident occurs and the accident has no relationship with the driving of the vehicle. The accident may occur due to over loading which has no connection with the licence of the driver; the accident may occur due to mechanical defect; the accident may occur due to blowing up of old worn out tyres. These examples can be multiplied. An accident may occur where though negligence can be attributed to the driver or the owner in not maintaining the vehicle properly or not running the vehicle properly, the negligence has no relationship with driving or the type of driving licence held by the driver. It is only if from the evidence on record it is clear that the accident has occurred due to such reasons having no connection with driving licence that the Insurance Company can be held liable. 12. On bare reading of the judgment, I find that the weight of the vehicle exceeds 7500 kilograms and in that eventuality it is not a 'light transport vehicle'. The driving licence Ex.RW-1/A cannot be treated as a valid driving licence. In these circumstances, the submissions made on behalf of the learned Counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. 13. Now turning to the appeal of the Insurance Company, FAO No. 410 of 2008, on the two issues urged by the Company, namely, that the deceased was traveling as gratuitous passenger, I find that this issue was not having argued before the learned trial Court. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. 13. Now turning to the appeal of the Insurance Company, FAO No. 410 of 2008, on the two issues urged by the Company, namely, that the deceased was traveling as gratuitous passenger, I find that this issue was not having argued before the learned trial Court. In these circumstances, this issue cannot be allowed to be raised in the present appeal having abandoned an issue/definition available to it. The Insurance Company might turn around and urge that the decision is wrong or bad. 14. On the point as to whether the amount in question can first be recovered from the Kusum Lata and Others Vs. Satbir and Others, (2011) 3 SCC 646 , the Supreme Court holds that such an order in fact be passed. I, therefore, find no illegality in the award passed by the learned Tribunal below. This appeal is also dismissed. It will be open to the Insurance Company to recover the amount from the other two respondents i.e. owner and driver. All miscellaneous applications are disposed of. All interim orders are vacated.