JUDGMENT : Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. This order shall govern the disposal of M.A. (C) No. 92/2013 and 93/2013 as both the appeals arising out of same accident and are directed against the award dated 18-10-2012 passed by Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gariaband, District Gariaband (for short "the Tribunal") in Claim Case Nos. 81/2009 and 80/2009 respectively by which the liability of payment of compensation has been saddled upon the Insurance Co. Brief facts necessary for disposal of these appeals are as under:-- 2.1. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 (Claim Case No. 81/2009) and respondent No. 1 (Claim Case No. 80/2009) filed claim petitions u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 pleading inter alia that on 20-4-2009 while deceased Nurendra Kumar Sahu and injured claimant Omprakash were going to Rajim from Village Ghoghra by motorcycle, offending vehicle Tractor bearing registration No. CG-04/D.M.-0523 driven by its driver Tikamchand Sahu, owned by Seetaram Sahu and insured by appellant/Insurance Co., dashed the motorcycle by which Nurendra Kumar died on account of injuries sustained by him in the accident whereas Omprakash sustained multiple injuries in the said accident. The matter was reported to the Police Station, Fingeshwer and offence was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of the IPC and charge-sheet has been filed and the matter is pending consideration before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rajim. 2.2. Respondents/driver and owner of the offending vehicle also resisted the claim of the claimants. 2.3. Appellant/Insurance Co. has also filed its written statement and opposed the claim of the claimants pleading inter alia that at the time of accident a trolley was attached with the tractor, which was separately registered but not insured with the appellant and many persons of "Mahila Samiti" were travelling in the trolley; it was further pleaded that as the driver of the offending vehicle tractor did not have valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle, the appellant/Insurance Co. is not liable for payment of compensation to the claimants. 2.4. Learned Claims Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led before it, had granted compensation of Rs. 4,76,400/- to the claimants (Claim Case No. 81/2009) whereas granted Rs. is not liable for payment of compensation to the claimants. 2.4. Learned Claims Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led before it, had granted compensation of Rs. 4,76,400/- to the claimants (Claim Case No. 81/2009) whereas granted Rs. 53,000/- to the injured claimant (Claimant Case No. 80/2009) along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its actual payment in both the claim cases. The Tribunal further held that the driver of the offending vehicle Tractor did have licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle and the Tractor is a Light Motor Vehicle and thus, the Insurance Co. is liable to make payment of compensation to the claimants. 2. Shri Devershi Thakur, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Co. would submit that the Tribunal has committed a legal error in holding that respondent/driver of the offending vehicle Tractor did have valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle. He would further submit that at the time of accident a trolley was attached with the tractor, which was separately insured by other Insurance Co. and several persons were sitting in the trolley and, therefore, the finding recorded by the Tribunal is contrary to the law and as such the impugned award fastening the liability of payment of compensation upon the appellant/Insurance Co. deserves to be set aside. 3. On the other hand, Shri P.P. Sahu and Shri C.K. Sahu, learned Counsel appearing for the respective respondents supported the award impugned and would submit in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability upon the appellant/Insurance Co. which does not call for any interference. 4. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record including award impugned. 5. On the basis of pleading of the parties, following point would arise for determination of this Court:-- Whether the Claims Tribunal was justified in holding that respondent/driver did have valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle at the time of accident? 6. Offending vehicle bearing registration No. CG-04/D.M.-0523 is a Tractor as per certificate of registration filed as Exh. D-4. Document (Exh. D-10) is a certificate-cum-policy schedule of the said tractor. The licence of the respondent/driver-Tikamchand Sahu is Exh. D-3, licence to drive motorcycle with gear and LMV only. 6. Offending vehicle bearing registration No. CG-04/D.M.-0523 is a Tractor as per certificate of registration filed as Exh. D-4. Document (Exh. D-10) is a certificate-cum-policy schedule of the said tractor. The licence of the respondent/driver-Tikamchand Sahu is Exh. D-3, licence to drive motorcycle with gear and LMV only. The said document has been duly proved by Pankaj Kumar (NAW 3), Law Officer of the Insurance Co., in which he has also stated that the respondent/driver-Tikamchand Sahu did have valid and effective driving licence to drive LMV and motorcycle. 7. A "light motor vehicle" is defined u/s 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as under:-- Section 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 exceed 7,500 kilograms. (Emphasis supplied by us) 8. A "tractor" is defined u/s 2(44) of the Act as under:-- Section 2(44). 'tractor' means a motor vehicle, which is not itself constructed to carry any load (other than equipment used for the purpose of propulsion); but excludes a road-roller; 9. A "trailer" is defined u/s 2(46) of the Act as under:-- Section 2(46). 'trailer' means any vehicle, other than a semi-trailer and a side-car, drawn or intended to be drawn by a motor vehicle; 10. Thus, the definition of "light motor vehicle" includes a "transport vehicle". A "tractor" is also included in the definition of "light motor vehicle". 11. The Supreme Court in case of Nagashetty Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others, (2001) 8 SCC 56 has held as under:-- 10. We are unable to accept the submission of Mr. S.C. Sharda. It is an admitted fact that the driver had a valid and effective driving licence to drive a tractor. Undoubtedly, u/s 10 a licence is granted to drive specific categories of motor vehicles. The question is whether merely because a trailer was attached to the tractor and the tractor was used for carrying goods, the licence to drive a tractor becomes ineffective. If the argument of Mr. Undoubtedly, u/s 10 a licence is granted to drive specific categories of motor vehicles. The question is whether merely because a trailer was attached to the tractor and the tractor was used for carrying goods, the licence to drive a tractor becomes ineffective. If the argument of Mr. S.C. Sharda is to be accepted then every time an owner of a private, car who has a licence to drive a light motor vehicle attaches a roof carrier to his car or a trailer to his car and carries goods thereon, the light motor vehicle would become a transport vehicle and the owner would be deemed to have no licence to drive that vehicle. It would lead to absurd results, Merely because a trailer is added either to a trailer or to a motor vehicle by itself does not make that tractor or motor vehicle a transport vehicle. The tractor or motor vehicle remains a tractor or motor vehicle. If a person has a valid driving licence to drive a tractor or a motor vehicle he continuous to have a valid licence to drive that tractor or motor vehicle even if a trailer is attached to it and some goods are carried in it. In other words, a person having a valid driving licence to drive a particular category of vehicle does not become disabled to drive that vehicle merely because a trailer is added to that vehicle. 12. Considering the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above referred case and followed by a Division Bench of this Court i Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Jhool Bai and Others, (2009) ACJ 758 it cannot be said that merely because the trolley is attached to the Tractor, the tractor would cease to be the Light Motor Vehicle and would become transport vehicle. 13. Placing reliance on the judgment of Supreme court in Nagashetty (supra), I hold that since the driver of the tractor had a valid and effective driving licence to drive the Light Motor Vehicle (Tractor), he would not become disabled to drive the tractor, merely because a trolley attached to the tractor. 14. 13. Placing reliance on the judgment of Supreme court in Nagashetty (supra), I hold that since the driver of the tractor had a valid and effective driving licence to drive the Light Motor Vehicle (Tractor), he would not become disabled to drive the tractor, merely because a trolley attached to the tractor. 14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of ratio of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above referred case, I do not find any illegality in the award passed by the Tribunal fastening the liability of payment of compensation upon the appellant/Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited. Thus, the point arises for determination of this Court is answered accordingly. 15. No other point was raised before me. 16. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, both the appeals being devoid of substance are liable to be and are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Copy of this order be placed on record of M.A. No. 93/2013.