ORDER 4.2.2011 — This appeal by the claimant is directed against the judgment/award dated 5.12.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Phulbani, in M.A.C. Case No.20 of 2005, awarding an amount of Rs.37,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim application and directing the owner of the vehicle-respondent No.1 to pay the same. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellant submits that the findings of the learned Tribunal regarding the driver not possessing a valid and effective driving licence, at the time of the accident and accordingly saddling the entire liability on the owner of the vehicle is erroneous and misconceived. In this regard, it is submitted that the driver of the offending vehicle (Tempo Trax) bearing No.OR-12/2080 was holding a driving licence authorizing him to drive a light motor vehicle and admittedly as the offending vehicle (Tempo Trax) is a ‘light motor vehicle’, learned Tribunal erred in ignoring the same and holding that the driver was not possessing a valid driving licence and the owner should bear the entire compensation amount payable. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Smruti Ranjan Parida v. Taramani Das and others, 2010 (I) OLR 431 , in support of his contention that as the driver was driving the Tempo Trax, which is a light motor vehicle and the driving licence held by him authorized him to drive a ‘light motor vehicle’, there was no violation of policy condition. It is accordingly prayed that the entire awarded amount be saddled on the insurer of the offending vehicle. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company-respondent No.2, while supporting the impugned award, submits that as the driving licence held by the driver of the offending vehicle (Tempo Trax) did not authorize him to drive a commercial/transport vehicle, learned Tribunal was fully justified in holding that the driver was not possessing a valid and effective driving licence and accordingly saddling the entire liability on the owner of the vehicle. On a perusal of the impugned award it is seen that the learned Tribunal with reference to the Insurance Policy (Except.A) and the Driving Licence (Ext.B) has come to find that the driver was possessing a driving licence authorizing him to drive a light motor vehicle and he was not authorized to drive commercial/transport vehicle. On a perusal of the impugned award it is seen that the learned Tribunal with reference to the Insurance Policy (Except.A) and the Driving Licence (Ext.B) has come to find that the driver was possessing a driving licence authorizing him to drive a light motor vehicle and he was not authorized to drive commercial/transport vehicle. Accordingly, learned Tribunal has come to find that there is violation of policy condition by the owner and therefore the insurer is not liable to indemnify the liability of the owner. The relevant findings of the learned Tribunal is as follows: “xx xx xx The O.P. No.2 had filed the certified copy of the said driving license. It goes to show that the driver was issued with a light motor vehicle driving license simpliciter. There is no endorsement in the Driving license authorizing the driver to drive a commercial/transport vehicle. As of law a commercial/transport driving license can only be issued for 3 years at a time. The driving license in favour of the driver of the offending vehicle was issued for 16 years i.e. 5.8.1999 to 4.8.2015. This also confirms that the driving license of the driver of the offending vehicle was only a light motor vehicle driving license and the driver is not authorized to drive commercial/transport vehicle. Thus the driving of the offending vehicle had no effective driving license at all. The owner of the offending vehicle i.e. O.P. No.1 must have seen this driving license of the driver and must be aware that the driver is not authorized to drive a transport vehicle. When the owner knowing fully well of the situation had allowed such a person to drive his vehicle who does not possess a valid driving license, the owner only should bear the burnt. He is only liable for his conduct. The copy of Insurance Policy Ext. A clearly goes to show that there was stipulation in the policy that the vehicle is to be driven by a person who is authorized to drive a transport vehicle. Therefore, there is violation of the condition of the policy by the owner and that being the position the O.P. No.2 the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the liability of the owner and therefore is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. Therefore, there is violation of the condition of the policy by the owner and that being the position the O.P. No.2 the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the liability of the owner and therefore is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. The whole of the compensation is to be paid only by the owner of the offending vehicle, the O.P. No.1.” Admittedly, the offending vehicle (Tempo Trax) No.OR-12/2080 is a ‘light motor vehicle’ and the driver was holding a driving licence No.458/1999-2000, authorizing him to drive a light motor vehicle. In the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant in the case of Smruti Ranjan Parida (Supra), this Court with reference to the various provisions of the M.V. Act, 1988, has come to find as under :- “On a reading of the aforesaid provisions clearly goes to show that the definition of a ‘light motor vehicle’, as given in Section 2(21) of the M.V. Act would also include a transport vehicle, whose gross vehicle weight does not exceed 7500 Kgs. It can apply only to a ‘light goods vehicle’ or a ‘light transport vehicle’. A ‘light goods vehicle’ having not been defined in the M.V. Act, the definition of ‘light motor vehicle’ clearly indicates that it takes within its umbrage, both a transport vehicle and a non-transport vehicle, whose gross vehicle weight does not exceed 7500 Kgs. Therefore, a ‘light motor vehicle’ can also mean a light passenger carriage vehicle and light goods carriage vehicle.” In view of the above, there remains no doubt that the driving licence held by the driver of the offending Tempo Trax authorizing him to drive a light motor vehicle, was valid and effective. Applying the principles of law, as has been decided in Smruti Ranjan Parida (Supra), the impugned award fixing the entire liability on the owner of the vehicle is set aside and the insurer-respondent No.2 is held liable to pay the awarded compensation amount of Rs.37,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application. The insurer-respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the awarded compensation amount of Rs.37,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application with the learned Tribunal within six weeks hence. M.A.C.A. is accordingly allowed. MACA allowed.