JUDGMENT Mr. Jitendra Chauhan, J. (Oral):- The appellant i.e. Driver of the offending vehicle has preferred the present appeal, against the impugned Award dated 17.2.2011, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panipat (for short ‘the Tribunal’), vide which the claim petition was allowed and the appellant i.e. driver and Om Parkash, owner of the offending vehicle, were held liable to pay the compensation amount. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the driver was holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident and mechanisam involved falls within the category of LMV, which includes Car/ Tractor, trolley, unladen weight of which is 7500 Kgs. He further submits that the mechanisam of Car and Jeep is the same as that of the Tractor. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kusum Rai and Others, 2006(4) SCC 250. 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent -Insurance Company has stated that the accident occurred on 17.3.2009, whereas the endorsement for driving the tractor was entered on 16.4.2009, i.e. one month after the accident. Therefore, on the date of accident, there was no endorsement on the licence held by the appellant. She refers to Section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act and states that as per the same, the driver is required to hold a licence for a specific category. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. It is proved on record that on the date of the accident, the appellant was holding an LMV driving licence which was valid for driving Car/ Jeep, but not for plying the tractor. The endorsement for driving the tractor was made after one month of the accident. The endorsement was made on 16.4.2009, whereas the accident occurred on 16.3.2009. 6. Keeping in view the requirement of the Act as specified in Section 2 of the Act and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. The endorsement for driving the tractor was made after one month of the accident. The endorsement was made on 16.4.2009, whereas the accident occurred on 16.3.2009. 6. Keeping in view the requirement of the Act as specified in Section 2 of the Act and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir and another, 2008(8) SCC 253, wherein it has been held that the driver was holding a licence of three wheeler but was driving Auto Rikshaw delivery van, which was a goods carrying public carrier within meaning of Rule 51 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (Central Rule 51) and hence, the driver was not holding a valid licence, Insurance Company is not liable. The present appeal is dismissed bereft of any merit. 7. As the main appeal stands dismissed, therefore, the application for condonation of delay is also dismissed. ------------------