AWARD 1. This is insurer's appeal against the award dated 29.07.2009 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari in claim case No.21 /2008. 2. As against the compensation of Rs.3, 15,000/- claimed by respondent No.1, i.e., claimant by filing claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth 'the Act') for the injuries sustained by him in the accident on 12.05.2008, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,12,678/along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of claim application till its actual payment. 3. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led held: the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle, i.e., Minidor bearing registration No.C.G.l-04/T/3353 by its driver - Vijay Kumar Singh i.e. respondent No.2; respondent No.1/claimant - Ashok Kumar Dhruv sustained multiple injuries resulting into permanent disability to the extent of 45% in the said accident; the appellant/insurance company liable for payment of compensation as it could not establish violation of policy conditions; assessed and awarded the aforesaid sum as compensation. 4. Shri Abhishek Sinha and Shri Ghanshyam Patel, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would submit: the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is shockingly on higher side. It was further contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing a valid and effective driving licence to drive the Minirdor and therefore, the Tribunal has fallen in error in saddling the liability of payment of compensation upon the appellant/insurance company. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record of the Tribunal including award impugned. 6. Admittedly, the offending vehicle was a light motor vehicle; was used at the time of accident, as passenger carrying vehicle. To drive the said vehicle, a licence to drive transport vehicle is required under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. As per evidence adduced in this case, the driver was possessing licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle as well as Heavy Goods Vehicle. Therefore, it cannot be said that he was disentitled to drive a transport vehicle. The Supreme Court, in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Vs. Zaharulnisha & Ors. As per evidence adduced in this case, the driver was possessing licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle as well as Heavy Goods Vehicle. Therefore, it cannot be said that he was disentitled to drive a transport vehicle. The Supreme Court, in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Vs. Zaharulnisha & Ors. I, in a case where the offending vehicle was a Scooter and the Scooter driver was not holding any licence to drive the Scooter and was holding licence to drive Heavy Motor Vehicle, has held that the driver was not possessing valid and effective driving licence. However, the facts of the present case are different. In the instant case, the driver of the offending vehicle was possessing to drive light motor vehicle as well as licence to drive heavy goods vehicle, and therefore, in the opinion of this Court, when a driver, who, apart from holding driving licence to drive light motor vehicle, also holds a licence to drive Heavy Goods Vehicle, is entitled to drive light motor vehicle (transport vehicle). 7. In view of above, the submission made by the counsel for the appellant is sans substance. 8. Coming to the next question, the respondent No.1 's disability is to the extent of 45% and the Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 1,12,678/-, which, by no stretch of imagination, can be termed as shockingly on higher side warranting interference of this Court in the instant appeal. 9. For the reasons mentioned herein above, I do not find any infirmity in the award impugned warranting interference of this Court. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed having no substance and merit. 10. No order as to costs. Appeal Dismissed.