Judgment Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. These appeals are directed against the award dated 29th November, 2006, passed by the Motor Accident Claims in MAC Petition No.24 of 2004 RBT 51 of 2005, titled Trishla Devi & others vs. Jai Kumar & others, whereby a sum of Rs.4,51,100/-alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum came to be awarded as compensation in favour of the claimants and against the insurer (for short the “impugned award”). 2. In FAO No.55 of 2007, the insurer has questioned the impugned award on the ground that the driver, namely, Jai Kumar of the offending vehicle was not having the valid and effective driving licence, the owner has committed willful breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy read with the mandate of Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the M.V. Act”). Thus, the Tribunal has fallen in error in saddling the insurer with liability to satisfy the award. 3. In FAO No.42 of 2007, the claimants have sought enhancement of compensation on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal read with the claim petition. 4. I have gone through the claim petition and perused the record. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, rightly held the claimants are entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.4,51,100/-, is just and appropriate compensation. 5. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has rightly saddled the insurer with liability for the following reasons. This Court in judgment dated 25th July, 2014, passed in FAO No.54 of 2012, tilted Mahesh Kumar and another vs. Smt. Piaro Devi and others held that the driver who was having the effective and valid driving licence to drive the light motor vehicle portion of the judgment herein: “10. I deem it proper to reproduce the definitions of “driving licence”, “light motor vehicle”, “private service vehicle” and “transport vehicle” as contained in Sections 2(10), 2(21), 2(35) and 2(47), respectively, of the MV Act herein: “2. ….............. (10) “driving licence” means the licence issued by a competent authority under Chapter II authorising the person specified therein to drive, otherwise than a learner, a motor vehicle or a motor vehicle of any specified class or description. ….............. (10) “driving licence” means the licence issued by a competent authority under Chapter II authorising the person specified therein to drive, otherwise than a learner, a motor vehicle or a motor vehicle of any specified class or description. xxx xxx xxx “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. xxx xxx xxx (35) “public service vehicle” means any motor vehicle used or adapted to be used for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward, and includes a maxicab, a motorcab, contract carriage, and stage carriage. xxx xxx xxx (47) “transport vehicle” means a public service vehicle, a goods carriage , an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle.” 11. Section 2(21) of the MV Act provides that a “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 Section 2(35) of the MV Act gives the definition of a “public service vehicle”, which means any vehicle, which is used or allowed to be used for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward and includes a maxicab, a motorcab, contract carriage and stage carriage. It does not include light motor vehicle (LMV). Section 2(47) of the MV Act defines a “transport vehicle”. It means a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle. 12. At the cost of repetition, definition of “light motor vehicle” includes the words “transport vehicle” also. Thus, the definition, as given, mandates the “light motor vehicle” is itself a “transport vehicle”, whereas the definitions of other vehicles are contained in Sections 2(14), 2(16), 2(17), 2(18), 2(22), 2(23) 2(24), 2(25), 2(26), 2(27), 2(28) and 2(29) of the MV Act. In these definitions, the words “transport vehicle” are neither used nor included and that is the reason, the definition of “transport vehicle” is given in Section 2(47) of the MV Act. 13. In this backdrop, we have to go through Section 3 and Section 10 of the MV Act. It is apt to reproduce Section 3 of the Act herein: “3. Necessity for driving licence. 13. In this backdrop, we have to go through Section 3 and Section 10 of the MV Act. It is apt to reproduce Section 3 of the Act herein: “3. Necessity for driving licence. - (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorising him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle [other than a motor cab or motor cycle hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under sub-section (2) of section 75] unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do. (2) The conditions subject to which sub-section (1) shall not apply to a person receiving instructions in driving a motor vehicle shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government.” 14. It mandates that the driver should have the licence to drive a particular kind of vehicle and it must this section, the words “light motor vehicle” are not recorded. Meaning thereby, this section is to be read with the definition of other vehicles including the definition given in Section 2(47) of the MV Act except the definition given in Section 2(21) of the MV Act for the reason that Section 2(21) of the MV Act provides, as discussed hereinabove, that it includes transport vehicle also. 15. My this view is supported by Section 10 of the MV Act, which reads as under: “10. Form and contents of licences to drive. -(1) Every learner's licence and driving licence, except a driving licence issued under section 18, shall be in such form and shall contain such information as may be prescribed by the Central Government. (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 cases, 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.” 16. Section 10(2)(d) of the MV Act contains “light motor vehicle” and Section 10(2)(e) of the MV Act, which was substituted in terms of amendment of 1994, class of the vehicles specified in clauses (e) to (h) before amendment stand deleted and the definition of the “transport vehicle” stands inserted. Section 10(2)(d) of the MV Act contains “light motor vehicle” and Section 10(2)(e) of the MV Act, which was substituted in terms of amendment of 1994, class of the vehicles specified in clauses (e) to (h) before amendment stand deleted and the definition of the “transport vehicle” stands inserted. So, the words “transport vehicle” used in Section 3 of the MV Act are to be read viz-a-viz other vehicles, definitions of which are given and discussed hereinabove. 17. A Division Bench of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Srinagar, of which I (Justice case titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Muhammad Sidiq Kuchey & ors., being LPA No. 180 of 2002, decided on 27th September, 2007, has discussed this issue and held that a driver having licence to drive “LMV” requires no “PSV” endorsement. It is apt to reproduce the relevant portion of the judgment herein: “The question now arises as to whether the driver who possessed driving licence for driving abovementioned vehicles, could he drive a passenger vehicle? The answer, I find, in the judgment passed by this court in case titled National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Irfan Sidiq Bhat, 2004 (II) SLJ 623, wherein it is held that Light Motor Vehicle includes transport vehicle and transport vehicle includes public service vehicle and public service vehicle includes any motor vehicle used or deemed to be used for carriage of passengers. Further held, that the authorization of having PSV endorsement in terms of Rule 41 (a) of the Rules is not required in the given circumstances. It is profitable to reproduce paras 13 and 17 of the judgment hereunder:- “13. A combined reading of the above provisions leaves no room for doubt that by virtue of licence, about which there is no dispute, both Showkat Ahamd and Zahoor Ahmad were competent in terms of section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act to drive a public service vehicle without any PSV endorsement and express authorization in terms of rule 4(1)(a) of the State Rules. In other words, the requirement of the State Rules stood satisfied. …......................................... 17. In the case of Mohammad Aslam Khan (CIMA no. 87 of 2002) Peerzada Noor-ud-Din appearing as witness on behalf of Regional Transport Officer did say on recall for further examination that Ahmad was fake. In other words, the requirement of the State Rules stood satisfied. …......................................... 17. In the case of Mohammad Aslam Khan (CIMA no. 87 of 2002) Peerzada Noor-ud-Din appearing as witness on behalf of Regional Transport Officer did say on recall for further examination that Ahmad was fake. In our opinion, the fact that the PSV endorsement on the licence was fake is not at all material, for, even if the claim is considered on the premise that there was no PSV endorsement on the licence, for the reasons stated above, it would not materially affect the claim. By virtue of “C to E” licence Showkat Ahmad was competent to drive a passenger vehicle. In fact, there is no separate definition of passenger vehicle or passenger service vehicle in the Motor Vehicles Act. They come within the ambit of public service vehicle under section 2(35). A holder of driving licence with respect to “light Motor Vehicle” is thus competent to drive any motor vehicle used or adapted to be used for carriage of passengers i.e. a public service vehicle.” In the given circumstances of the case PSV endorsement was not required at all.” 18. The purpose of mandate of Sections 2 and 3 of the MV Act came up for consideration before the Apex Court in a case titled as Chairman, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & ors. versus Smt. Santosh & Ors., reported in 2013 AIR SCW 2791, and after examining the various provisions of the MV Act held that Section 3 of the Act casts an obligation on the driver to hold an effective driving licence for the type of vehicle, which he intends to drive. It is apt to reproduce paras 19 and 23 of the judgment herein: “19. Section 2(2) of the Act defines articulated vehicle which means a motor vehicle to which a semi-trailer is attached; Section 2(34) defines public place; Section 2(44) defines 'tractor' as a motor vehicle which is not itself constructed to carry any load; Section 2(46) defines `trailer' which means any vehicle, other than a semi-trailer and a side-car, drawn or intended to be drawn by a motor vehicle. Section 3 of the Act provides for responsibility of owners of the vehicle for contravention of Sections 3 and 4; Section 6 provides for restrictions on the holding of driving license; Section 56 provides for compulsion for having certificate of fitness for transport vehicles; Section 59 empowers the State to fix the age limit of the vehicles; Section 66 provides for necessity for permits to ply any vehicle for any commercial purpose; Section 67 empowers the State to control road transport; Section 112 provides for limits of speed; Sections 133 and 134 imposes a duty on the owners and the drivers of the vehicles in case of accident and injury to a person; Section 146 provides that no person shall use any vehicle at a public place unless the vehicle is insured. In addition thereto, the Motor Vehicle Taxation Act provides for imposition of passenger tax and road tax etc. 20. …....................... 21. …...................... 22. …..................... 23. Section 3 of the Act casts an obligation on a driver to hold an effective driving license for the type of vehicle which he intends to drive. Section 10 of the Act enables the Central Government to prescribe forms of driving licenses for various categories of vehicles mentioned in sub-section (2) of the said Section. The definition clause in Section 2 of the Act defines various categories of vehicles which are covered in broad types mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 10. They are 'goods carriage', 'heavy goods vehicle', 'heavy passenger motor vehicle', 'invalid carriage', 'light motor vehicle', 'maxi-cab', 'medium goods vehicle', 'medium passenger motor vehicle', 'motor-cab', 'motorcycle', 'omnibus', 'private service vehicle', 'semi-trailer', 'tourist vehicle', 'tractor', 'trailer' and 'transport vehicle'.” 19. The Apex Court in another case titled as National Insurance Company Ltd. versus Annappa 906, has also discussed the purpose of amendments, which were made in the year 1994 and the definitions of 'light motor vehicle', 'medium goods vehicle' and the necessity of having a driving licence. It is apt to reproduce paras 8, 14 and 16 of the judgment herein: “8. Mr. S.N. Bhat, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the contention raised herein by the appellant has neither been raised before the Tribunal nor before the High Court. It is apt to reproduce paras 8, 14 and 16 of the judgment herein: “8. Mr. S.N. Bhat, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the contention raised herein by the appellant has neither been raised before the Tribunal nor before the High Court. In any event, it was urged, that keeping in view the definition of the 'light motor vehicle' as contained in Section 2(21) of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988 ('Act' for short), a light goods carriage would come within the purview thereof. A 'light goods carriage' having not been defined in the Act, the definition of the 'light motor vehicle' clearly indicates that it takes within its umbrage, both a transport vehicle and a non-transport vehicle. Strong reliance has been placed in this behalf by the learned counsel in Ashok Gangadhar Maratha vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., [ 1999 (6) SCC 620 ]. 9. ….................. 10. …............... 11. …............... 12. ….............. 13. ….............. 14. Rule 14 prescribes for filing of an application in Form 4, for a licence to drive a motor vehicle, categorizing the same in nine types of vehicles. Clause (e) provides for 'Transport vehicle' which has been substituted by G.S.R. 221(E) with effect from 28.3.2001. Before the amendment in 2001, the entries medium goods vehicle and heavy goods vehicle vehicle. As noticed hereinbefore, Light Motor Vehicles also found place therein. 15. ….......................... 16. From what has been noticed hereinbefore, it is evident that 'transport vehicle' has now been substituted for 'medium goods vehicle' and 'heavy goods vehicle'. The light motor vehicle continued, at the relevant point of time, to cover both, 'light passenger carriage vehicle' and 'light goods carriage vehicle'. A driver who had a valid licence to drive a light motor vehicle, therefore, was authorised to drive a light goods vehicle as well.” 6. Having glance of the above discussions, I hold that the endorsement of PSV was not required and the owner has not committed any breach of the insurance policy. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly saddled the insurer with the liability. 7. Viewed thus, both the appeals are dismissed alongwith all pending applications. 8. The Registry is directed to release the awarded amount in favour of the claimants, strictly in terms of the conditions contained in the impugned award through payee’s account cheque, after proper identification.