JUDGMENT : Vijender Singh Malik, J. 1. The above mentioned two appeals have been directed by the heirs of Vijay Pal, driver and owner of tractor No. HR-30B-0753 [hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”] against the common award dated 13.12.2010 passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palwal (for short, “the Tribunal”). One claim petition had been brought by Mano Devi and others for compensation on the death of Man Singh, husband of Mano Devi and the other claim petition had been brought by Mano Devi herself for the injuries she suffered in the accident. The claim, as set up in these petitions, is as under : On 9.3.2007, at about 6.00 PM, Mano Devi alongwith her husband Man Singh was there in front of her house at village Lohagarh on Rasulpur road. In the meanwhile, the offending vehicle came from the side of Palwal. It was driven by respondent No. 1. The said tractor had hit the claimant and her husband, who were standing on the kacha portion of the road in front of their house. The offending vehicle ran over Man Singh who died at the spot. Mano Devi suffered injuries including fractures in her right leg, hip joint and ribs. She was taken to General Hospital, Palwal and her medico legal examination was conducted. Mano Devi spent Rs. 20,000/- in her treatment. She is claimed to be still under treatment. She was engaged as attendant at monthly salary of Rs. 1,500/- and she was doing labour work and earning Rs. 4,000/- per month. Man Singh is said to have been of the age of 60 years and earning Rs. 7,000/- per month by selling milk and dealing in the business of buffaloes. A sum of Rs. 20,000/- is claimed to have been spent on the last rites of the deceased. 2. The aforesaid averments have been denied by the respondents. 3. After framing of the issues and due trial, learned Tribunal assessed compensation in a sum of Rs. 2.00 lacs for the injuries and permanent disability suffered by Mano Devi and assessed a sum of Rs. 1,88,000/- as compensation in favour of Mano Devi and others on account of death of her husband in the aforesaid accident. 3. After framing of the issues and due trial, learned Tribunal assessed compensation in a sum of Rs. 2.00 lacs for the injuries and permanent disability suffered by Mano Devi and assessed a sum of Rs. 1,88,000/- as compensation in favour of Mano Devi and others on account of death of her husband in the aforesaid accident. While dealing with the question of liability to satisfy these awards, learned Tribunal has found that the licence held by respondent No. 1 did not authorize him to drive a tractor which he was driving at the time of accident. Therefore, it has been held that he was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive a tractor. Consequently, the insurer was though, held liable to pay the compensation, yet was entitled to recover the same from respondents No. 1 to 5. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the driving licence held by respondent No. 1, Ex R2 on record, authorized him to drive motorcycle, light motor vehicle and heavy transport vehicle. According to him, these vehicles covered the tractor also. According to him, tractor is a light motor vehicle as per the definition of expression available in section 2(21) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [for short, “the Act”]. He has further submitted that no special skill was required to drive a tractor and a person who was authorized to drive a light motor vehicle and heavy transport vehicle was definitely authorized to drive a tractor. He has submitted that this question has been dealt by a co-ordinate Bench of this court in Oriental Insurance Company v. Mukesh 2011 (2) RCR (Civil) 508 where the driver had the licence to drive light motor vehicle and he caused accident while driving a passenger vehicle. It was held that driver who was holding a valid driving licence to drive light motor vehicle was authorized to drive a light goods vehicle as well and as such, the insurance company was held liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has contended that tractor is separately defined in the Act. According to him, the definition of tractor finds mention in section 2(44) of the Act. He has submitted that had light motor vehicle as defined under section 2(21) of the Act included the tractor, there was no necessity to define it separately. According to him, the definition of tractor finds mention in section 2(44) of the Act. He has submitted that had light motor vehicle as defined under section 2(21) of the Act included the tractor, there was no necessity to define it separately. According to him, separate driving licence is required to drive a tractor because special skill is required to drive a tractor. He has submitted that this question came up before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Prabhu Lal 2008 (1) R.C.R. (Civil) 198. In the said case, the driver possessed licence to drive light motor vehicle and he was driving a transport vehicle [goods carriage]. It was held that the insurance company was not liable to pay compensation as driver had no licence to drive a transport vehicle in the absence of necessary endorsement. 6. The case here is that respondent no. 1 was driving a tractor while he was holding a licence to drive light motor vehicle and heavy transport vehicle. In none of the aforesaid categories tractor is included. The framers of the Act in their wisdom had separately defined tractor and did not include it either in light motor vehicle or heavy transport vehicle. For every category of vehicle, so defined in the Act, licence has to be required authorizing him to drive that kind of vehicle. When respondent No. 1 was not authorized to drive a tractor, he cannot be said to be holding a driving licence authorizing him to drive the same. Therefore, learned Tribunal has been fully justified in holding that respondent No. 1 was not holding a valid driving licence to drive a tractor. Consequently, no fault can be found with the decision of learned Tribunal. 7. In this view of the matter, the appeals fail and are dismissed.