JUDGMENT : M.D. Shah, J. This appeal is filed against the judgment and award dated 11.2.2000 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Baroda in M.A.C. Petition No. 1729 of 1991, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 91,800 with proportionate costs and interest @ 12% per annum from the date of application till its realisation. The brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are such that son of the claimants namely Tino @ Punambhai Bhikhabhai Rathod was serving as conductor on OCM Toyota Truck bearing No. GQB 5983 which is of the ownership of Patel Bhagvanbhai Bhailalbhai of village Napad and hence their son has gone on 25.5.1991 to load the bags from Dasarath in vehicle No. GQB 5983 and was coming to village Napad, at about 4.00 p.m., they reached near Ranoli crossing on National Highway No. 8 and at that time the driver of the said truck drove the truck in full speed and in rash and negligent manner and the opponent No. 1 dashed with the luxury bus which was taking turn ahead and caused accident and the son of the applicant Tino @ Punambhai sustained injuries and succumbed to the same on the spot. The parents of the deceased filed the claim petition, in which the learned Tribunal passed the award as stated above which is challenged in this appeal. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Sandip Shah for the appellant and learned Advocate Mr. Nilesh Pandya for respondent No. 4. Though rule is served, none appears for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and 7. Learned Advocate for the appellant submits that on the date of accident, the driver was not having effective and valid licence and the driving licence which is produced at Exh. 48 authorized the driver to drive only Light Motor Vehicles and the vehicle involved was "LGV and hence there is breach of condition of policy and learned Tribunal has not considered the same and so the Tribunal has committed error and Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. He took this Court through the copy of licence and pointed out that the driver has only licence of LMV. Alternatively, it is argued that if the Court comes to the conclusion that driver has legal and valid licence, then the award is passed on higher side and so requested to reduce the awarded amount. He took this Court through the copy of licence and pointed out that the driver has only licence of LMV. Alternatively, it is argued that if the Court comes to the conclusion that driver has legal and valid licence, then the award is passed on higher side and so requested to reduce the awarded amount. He placed reliance on the following decisions - New Indian Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir and Another, (2008) 3 SCC 464 . Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Angad Kol and Others, (2009) 11 SCC 356 . Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Zaharulnisha and Others, (2008) 12 SCC 385 , National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vidhyadhar Mahariwala and Others, (2008) 12 SCC 701 . Manohar Jamatmal Sindhi and Another Vs. Ranguba and Others, (1994) ACJ 1280. Learned Advocate appearing for the original claimants submits that the accident took place on 25.5.1991 and the amendment in Motor Vehicles Act came into force on 28.3.2001 and so question does not arise to exonerate Insurance Company on the ground of breach of condition of the policy. He submitted that the driver of the vehicle was holding a valid licence to drive light motor vehicle and as per the definition of light motor vehicle u/s 2(21) of the Act, it included even the transport vehicle and other similar vehicles, unladen weight of any of which does not exceed 7500 kgs. It is submitted that in the instant case, the weight of the vehicle involved was 5990 kgs., which is less than 7500 kgs. He took this Court through Section 2(21) of Motor Vehicles Act. He placed reliance on the following decisions: (1) Kimatmal Jamandas Makhija Vs. Baloch Ismail Husein and Others, (2013) 1 ACC 499. (2) National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Annappa Irappa Nesaria and Others, (2008) 3 SCC 464 . Heard learned Advocates for the parties, perused the impugned judgment and award and also the papers. The main dispute involved in this case is whether the driver had valid licence or not at the time of the accident. In this regard, while perusing Section 2(21) of the Act, it reads as under: "2(21). Light motor vehicle 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 excess 7500 kilograms. In this regard, while perusing Section 2(21) of the Act, it reads as under: "2(21). Light motor vehicle 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 excess 7500 kilograms. So, as per the above definition 'light motor vehicle' 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 kgs. It transpires that pursuant to the Amendment Act No. 54 of 1994 with effect from 14.11.1994, the weight of 6000 kgs. was enhanced to 7500 kgs. In the instant case, the weight of the vehicle involved was 5990 kgs., as per the copy of insurance policy provided on record. Hence, I do not find any error committed by the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned judgment and award. In my view, the impugned judgment and award passed by learned Tribunal is just and proper." 2. In view of the above, this appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.