JUDGMENT : Surinder Singh, J. 1. The appellant-Insurance Company has challenged the award passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (I) Kangra at Dharamshala in MACP No. 95-P/II-2010 (2006), on 5.3.2011 to exonerate itself from its liability on the following grounds: (i) Respondent No. 1 Satish Kumar was traveling in the tractor trolley unauthorizedly, thus, he was gratuitous passenger; (ii) the driver of the tractor, Shri Rakesh Kumar @ Neeta (respondent No. 3) was not holding effective and valid driving licence; (iii) the tractor was transferred and handed over for actual control to Shri Rajinder Singh (respondent No. 2) and thereafter he got the insurance done in the name of the registered owner. Heard and gone through the record. 2. The way, the accident took place, Satish Kumar claimant in his petition in para-24 averred that on 23rd September, 2006, while returning home from Sujanpur at the place known as Mandral near Petrol Pump, the tractor bearing registration No. HP-22-9147 being driven by Rakesh Kumar, aforesaid hit him because of his rash and negligent driving. Consequently, his both legs were crushed and he also sustained injuries on his person. The driver of the tractor fled away from the spot. The injured was hospitalized and referred to PGI, Chandigarh, where he had undergone treatment and spent about Rs. 2.00 lacs on his treatment. The owner as well as the driver of the tractor in their reply denied the rash and negligent driving and also the accident itself. The Insurance-Company alleged that the claimant was traveling in the vehicle as a gratuitous passenger. 3. On the pleadings of the parties inter-alia, following issue was framed: Whether the petitioner was traveling as a gratuitous passenger. 4. The onus of the aforesaid issue was on the respondent-Company. 5. The petitioner as PW-1 substantiated his plea. Respondent No. 3 Rakesh Kumar, driver stepped into the witness box as his own witness as RW-2. Though, he denied the accident, but did not say that the petitioner was a gratuitous passenger. Whereas, RW-4 S.I. Jagdish Chand stated that as per the statements of the witnesses examined by him, the injured was sitting in the tractor. But no such witness, on whose information he had acted upon and stated so, was examined by the Insurance-Company. Even, he himself was not an eye witness of the accident. 6. Pertinently, in the FIR Ext. Whereas, RW-4 S.I. Jagdish Chand stated that as per the statements of the witnesses examined by him, the injured was sitting in the tractor. But no such witness, on whose information he had acted upon and stated so, was examined by the Insurance-Company. Even, he himself was not an eye witness of the accident. 6. Pertinently, in the FIR Ext. PW-4/A, there is a mention that the petitioner was a pedestrian and not the occupant of the vehicle in question. Therefore, on this evidence, the learned Tribunal rightly concluded that the aforesaid evidence was not helpful to the Insurance Company to prove that the injured was traveling in the tractor as a gratuitous passenger and I find no fault in the said findings. Therefore, these findings cannot be interfered with. 7. The next point for determination is with respect to the validity and effectiveness of the driving licence of respondent No. 3, Rakesh Kumar. Admittedly, he was the driver of the said vehicle. He was issued the driving licence on 26.9.1998 for driving the "Light Motor Vehicle (non-transport)". It was endorsed for driving the light transport w.e.f. 26.11.2011. The accident in question took place on 23.9.2006. On that day, he was holding driving licence Ext. R-2/A, valid for driving "LMV-TRANS" i.e. light motor vehicle-transport. These entries are supported by RW-1 Ramesh Chand, Licence Clerk, SDM Office, Jaisinghpur. 8. Against the above proved facts, Shri Sanjeev Kuthiala, Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company argued that the said driver was not holding the licence to drive tractor, as the "tractor" does not find mention in the Notification No. S.O. 436(E) dated 12th June, 1989 issued u/s 41 (4) of the Act as a "light motor vehicle". 9. I have perused the copy of the notification produced before me. The said notification, as already stated above, is issued u/s 41(4) of the Act, providing for the particulars and prescribes the procedure for registration to be made qua the vehicle of the categories referred therein by the Registering Authority. It does not say that the vehicles not found mentioned therein would not fall within that category. But here, it shall be relevant to refer to Section 2(21) of the Act which defines "light motor vehicle". It does not say that the vehicles not found mentioned therein would not fall within that category. But here, it shall be relevant to refer to Section 2(21) of the Act which defines "light motor vehicle". It 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. This Section specifically include the "tractor" within the definition of "LMV". Therefore, non-inclusion of the vehicle in the said notification, referred to above, cannot change the character of the vehicle contrary to the definition given in the Statute. 10. Since, the driver respondent No. 3 Shri Rakesh Kumar was holding the driving licence to drive the "light motor vehicle", which includes "tractor" in its definition, therefore, in my opinion, he was holding the valid and effective driving licence on the day of the accident aforesaid. 11. As far as the last point taken by the Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company is concerned, the plea of Insurance-Company is not that the vehicle was not insured with them on the relevant date. It is proved to be in use with the person other than issued with his consent. The point in issue is no more res-integra. The Apex Court in Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Kulsum and Others, , held that once the vehicle is insured, the owner as well as other person can use the vehicle with the consent of the owner. In the instant case, respondent No. 4, Kamlesh Kumar was the transferee. It is not the case of the Insurance Company that he was not given the consent by the registered owner to use the said vehicle. Therefore, the renewal of the insurance by him in the name of the registered owner cannot be faulted with and the appellant-Company cannot relieved from its liability. 12. Otherwise also, Section 146 of the Act does not provide that any person who uses the vehicle independently, should have taken a separate policy nor it is the case of the Insurance-Company, as stated above, that at the time of the alleged accident, the tractor in question was not insured with them. Therefore, this point is also decided against the Insurance Company. 13. Therefore, this point is also decided against the Insurance Company. 13. As a sequel of the above point-wise discussion and conclusion, in my opinion, the Insurance Company has no merit in their appeal, as such, it is dismissed. 14. The claimant Satish Kumar is suffering from 100% disability, as his both legs have been amputated. In view of this, 50% of the amount of compensation alongwith interest accrued thereon, be released to him by remitting the same in his saving bank account forthwith on furnishing saving bank account number in the Registry of this Court. The remaining amount shall be released to him after the expiry of the period meant for Special Leave Petition. The appeal stands disposed of, with the above directions.