Judgment : This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 13.03.2012, passed by A.D.J./First Fast Track Court, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar in MACP No. 162 of 2010 Malook Singh Versus Darshan Singh and others, whereby the claim petition of the claimant has been partly allowed against the Oriental Insurance Company (the appellant herein) for a sum of Rs.2,79,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the actual payment is made. Out of the amount awarded, Rs.1,50,000/- has been directed to be kept in a F.D.R. in some nationalised bank. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 24.11.2009 at about 9:00 AM when Smt. Jagir Kaur was travelling by Tata Sumo No.DL4C/F 9703, a bus bearing no.UA04C-1361 which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver came from the opposite direction and dashed with the Tata Sumo causing severe injuries to Smt. Jagir Kaur who succumbed to the same en-route to the hospital. The claimant thus claimed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation. 3. Opposite party nos.1 and 2, i.e., owner and driver of the bus, respectively, did not appear before the court below nor filed any written statement and therefore the case was proceeded ex parte against them. 4. Opposite party no.3, The Oriental Insurance Company, contested the case and filed its written statement, denying the contents of the claim petition. In additional pleas, it has been stated that there was a breach of the terms and condition of the policy of insurance as the driver of the bus was having a licence to drive only Heavy Goods Vehicle and he was not authorised to drive a bus, which is a public service vehicle. It was also pleaded that the petition is bad for non-joinder of parties. 5. Opposite party nos.4 and 5, who are sons of the claimants, filed their written statement jointly and has supported the contents of the claim petition. 6. The learned tribunal, on the basis of pleadings of parties, framed following issues for determination: i) Whether on the fateful day the alleged accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus resulting death of Smt. Jagir Kaur? ii) Whether the accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of Tata Sumo, if so, its effect? ii) Whether the accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of Tata Sumo, if so, its effect? iii) Whether the driver of the bus was not having valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident, if so, its effect? iv) Whether the claim petition is bad for non joinder of necessary parties since the owner and Insurance Company of the Tata Sumo were not made party, if so, its effect? v) To what relief the claimant is entitled for? 7. In support of his case, the claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and also got examined Jaspal Singh as P.W.2. The claimant also filed copy of F.I.R., cover note of policy, post-mortem report, photocopy of the driving licence of the bus driver, etc. as documentary evidence. From the side of Oriental Insurance Company, Ram Singh Pingal, Junior Assistant, A.R.T.O. Office, Udham Singh Nagar, was got examined as D.W.1 as well as filed documentary evidence. 8. The learned tribunal after hearing the parties and considering the entire evidence on record, by the impugned order awarded the compensation against the appellant Insurance Company as stated above. 9. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award, the Oriental Insurance Company has preferred this appeal. 10. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant pressed into service issue no.3 only and contended that the finding of the learned Tribunal is totally perverse. It is contended that before the Tribunal Ram Singh Pingal was examined as D.W.1 and he has specifically stated in his statement that so far as Public Service Vehicle is concerned, i.e., a bus in the case at hand, to drive the bus there should be a separate endorsement in the licence to the effect of P.S.V. (Public Service Vehicle) which authorises a person to drive a public service vehicle which includes a bus also. But the learned Tribunal has held that since the driver was having a licence to drive Transport Vehicle with the endorsement T.R. he was also authorised to drive a bus since the transport vehicle means a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle within the meaning of section 2(47) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that there ought to have been a separate endorsement for driving bus, which is a public service vehicle, is of no avail. 11. This fact is not disputed that the endorsement made in the licence is T.R. which authorises a person to drive a Transport Vehicle. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Kusum Rai and others, reported in II (2006) ACC 19 (SC) wherein at para-11 it has been held:- “11. It has not been disputed before us that the vehicle was being used as a taxi. It was, therefore, a commercial vehicle. The driver of the said vehicle, thus, was required to hold an appropriate licence therefore. Ram Lal who allegedly was driving the said vehicle at the relevant time, as noticed hereinabove, was holder of a licence to drive a light motor vehicle only. He did not possess any licence to drive a commercial vehicle. Evidently, therefore, there was a breach of condition of the contract of insurance. The appellant, therefore, could raise the said defence”. 13. In reply thereto, Sri S.K. Mandal, learned counsel for the claimant and Sri Z.U. Siddqui, learned counsel for the owner of bus have placed reliance in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh & others, reported in (2004) 3 Supreme Court Cases 297, wherein at para-47 it has been held as follows:- “47. If a person has been given a licence for a particular type of vehicle as specified therein, he cannot be said to have no licence for driving another type of vehicle which is of same category but of different type. As for example, when a person is granted a licence for driving a light motor vehicle, he can drive either a car or a jeep and it is not necessary that he must have driving licence both for car and jeep separately”. 14. Learned counsel for the owner/respondent no.2 also drew attention of the Court towards sub-clause (2) of Section 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 14. Learned counsel for the owner/respondent no.2 also drew attention of the Court towards sub-clause (2) of Section 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Section 10(2) is quoted hereunder:- “(2) A learner’s licence or, as the case may be, driving licence shall also be expressed as entitling the holder to drive a motor vehicle of one or more of the following classes, namely:- (a) motor cycle without gear; (b) motor cycle with gear; (c) invalid carriage; (d) light motor vehicle; [(e) transport vehicle;] (i) road-roller; (j) motor vehicle of a specified description.” 15. The amendment in section 10 was made by Act 54 of 1994 w.e.f. 14.-11.1994 and in class of vehicle (e) transport vehicle has been added by way aforesaid amendment. 16. Learned tribunal on the basis of definition of the Transport Vehicle that includes bus also has rightly come to the conclusion that since the driver of the bus was having a licence with an endorsement T.R., i.e., Transport Vehicle then the driver was also authorised to drive bus since the transport vehicle means a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle within the meaning of section 2(47) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. 17. This endorsement made in the licence was also clarified by the witness of the Insurance Company. 18. So far as the judgment, which has been referred by the learned counsel for the appellant, it transpires that in the same the amendment, which was made in section 10 by Act 54 of 1954 w.e.f. 14-11-1994, wherein in class of vehicle class (e) transport vehicle has been added, was not considered. As per the amended section, now there is only one class of the transport vehicle, which includes bus also. Therefore, the learned Tribunal rightly held that the driver was having a valid driving licence to drive bus also. 19. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal lacks merit and the same is dismissed. Impugned judgment and award dated 13.03.2012, passed by A.D.J./First Fast Track Court, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar in MACP No. 162 of 2010 Malook Singh Versus Darshan Singh and others, is affirmed. 20. Let the lower court record be sent back to the Tribunal concerned. 21. The amount deposited with the MACT concerned shall be released in favour of the claimant forthwith.