JUDGMENT Mr. K. Kannan, J. (Oral).:- The appeal by the Insurance Company is on the issue of liability. The vehicle involved in the accident was a Mahindra Pick up van, a goods vehicle insured as a commercial vehicle as per the terms of the policy. The driver had a driving license to drive of Light Motor Vehicle and jeep and it was his contention that he was duly licensed. The Insurance Company was pleading that it was a goods vehicle having been insured as for commercial purpose. Being a transport vehicle, a license of a driver without a transport vehicle endorsement cannot be said to be duly licensed to make the insurer liable. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, however, contends with reference to the unladen weight of the vehicle that it was a LMV. Therefore the driving license which he had, was sufficient and there was no breach of terms of policy. Learned counsel refers me to the decision of the Supreme Court in Ashok Gangadhar Maratha Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 2000 ACJ 319 where the Supreme Court was considering the case of a claim for damages to a truck for accident and the argument was that it was a transport vehicle and the driver possessed a license to drive light motor vehicle could not be said to be duly licensed. The Supreme Court held that since the vehicle was weighing less than 6,000 kg. and not carrying any goods at the time of accident, though the vehicle was designed to be used as a transport vehicle, the Insurance Company would be liable. The point which was made therefore was that the transport which was not a transporting goods and was used only as light motor vehicle would not require a transport vehicle endorsement for its driver. The counsel also refers me to a yet another judgment of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh and others 2004 (2) RCR (Civil) 114 that dealt at length another point of law on the subject relating to the nature of license and the circumstances when the Insurance Company could be made liable. Of particular relevance was a discussion of the Supreme Court as regards the breach of terms of policy where a person not possessing a driving license would itself be material, even while considering the liability of the insurer. Of particular relevance was a discussion of the Supreme Court as regards the breach of terms of policy where a person not possessing a driving license would itself be material, even while considering the liability of the insurer. The illustration was in a situation where a vehicle is parked in some place and there was no one driving the vehicle and the accident takes place involving such a vehicle. In a situation where the driver himself does not contribute to the accident, the nature of license that a person had would hardly have any relevance. It was this issue which was in focus in paragraph 84 to 87 of the judgment and it is not law for a position of what learned counsel for the respondent convasses before this Court. 3. The point on the other hand, simply put is that if the vehicle which is a goods vehicle, insured, as such for a commercial use and the accident was caused by the driver, then the point that would directly at issue would be whether the driver who had been negligent had valid license. A transport vehicle could very well be a light motor vehicle still but would obtain to another status, if such a light motor vehicle is used for any of the purposes which a transport vehicle is meant to be used for. A transport vehicle is defined under Section 2 (47) which is defined as follows:- 2(47) “transport vehicle” means a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle.” 4. It contemplates four different types of vehicles i) a public service vehicle ii) a goods carriage iii) an institution bus (iv) a private service vehicle. Each one of these categories has been defined under the Motor Vehicles Act. Goods carriage is defined independently under Section 2 (14) as follows: 2(14) “goods carriage” means any motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use solely for the carriage of goods, or any motor vehicle not so constructed or adapted when used for the carriage of goods.” 5. Section 3 is then to be seen whether it is attracted, for, it is this particular provision that requires a special endorsement. The section operates for two purposes. It stipulates that a person should hold an effective driving license to drive a motor vehicle. Section 3 is then to be seen whether it is attracted, for, it is this particular provision that requires a special endorsement. The section operates for two purposes. It stipulates that a person should hold an effective driving license to drive a motor vehicle. The second part of this Section casts an additional obligation for a driver to have, namely of a person who drives a transport vehicle cannot drive unless he has driving license that specifically entitles him to do so. It is immaterial that the vehicle is not a heavy motor vehicle. The same jeep license of a person to drive jeep would always be sufficient if it is merely a private passenger jeep. The moment it is put to public service, as such, or when it is used for transporting passengers for hire or for transporting goods, it comes within a different category and an additional liability is cast. This distinction on how a vehicle which is of a lower category would still require a license for a transport vehicle was explained by the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Vs. Chela Bharthama JT 2007 4 SC 519. It was a case of a person driving a three wheeler which was not a heavy vehicle was used as an Autorickshaw. A possession of license to drive a car or a light motor vehicle was found in that case to be insufficient and the Court held that without a transport vehicle endorsement the Insurance Company could not be made liable. The same issue was also answered in a subsequent case in New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Prabhu Lal 2008 ACJ 627 which was also a case where a driver who was having a light motor vehicle license was driving a transport vehicle. The Supreme Court held that without a transport vehicle endorsement, the Insurance Company could not be made liable. In my view, this secures the correct statement of law explained through Supreme Court and the liability cast on the Insurance Company without providing for a right of recovery against the owner and driver was not justified. The award of the Tribunal will stand modified allowing for the insurer to secure from the owner and driver a right of recovery in execution after satisfying the claim of the claimant. 6. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. ---------0.B.S.0------------