JUDGMENT 1. - The instant appeal is directed against the judgment cum award dated 30.9.2010 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Banswara in M.A.C. No. 338/2007 whereby the Tribunal partly accepted the claim application and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 87,550 to the respondent No. 1 Ramesh the injured claimant and held the appellant Insurance Company, Rahul Soni the owner and Ramesh Kumar the driver of the offending vehicle jointly and severally responsible to satisfy the award. The award has already been disbursed to the claimant. 2. The appellant Insurance Company has approached this Court challenging the finding recorded by the Tribunal whereby it was held jointly and severally to satisfy the award alongwith the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. The challenge to the said finding is based on the assertion that the vehicle in question was being plied in breach of the policy conditions and thus, the appellant was wrongly held responsible to satisfy the award. 3. Shri Rajesh Choudhary learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the vehicle in question was being plied in breach of the policy conditions because the driver Ramesh was having a licence Ex.A-1 which authorised him to drive only a light motor vehicle and a motorcycle. The vehicle in question was a transport vehicle i.e. a jeep and therefore, the appellant is entitled to be exonerated from the liability to satisfy the award. He relied on the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Ram Kumar v. Mangal Chand & Ors. reported in 2014(1) RLW 462 (Raj.) in support of his contention and prayed that while allowing the appeal, the appellant Insurance Company be permitted to recover the decretal amount from the registered owner of the vehicle involved in the accident because the decree has already been satisfied. 4. Shri Mridul jain learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 the vehicle owner and driver vehemently opposed the submission advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant and urged that the Tribunal rightly appreciated the facts available on record and arrived at a just conclusion that the jeep in question was a light motor vehicle and therefore, the same was not being plied in breach of the conditions of the policy. 5. 5. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and have gone through the impugned judgment cum award. 6. The fact regarding the driver Ramesh Kumar having a licence authorising him to drive only a light motor vehicle and a motorcycle at the time of the accident is not in dispute. The vehicle in question was registered and insured as a taxi and was being used for plying passengers when it met with the accident. Thus, it is covered under the definition of a transport vehicle. In the case of Ramesh Kumar (supra), this Court whilst considering the relevant legal provisions and various judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the issue held that a person holding a licence to drive a light motor vehicle is not authorised to drive a transport vehicle irrespective of its weight. The case at hand is squarely covered by the said decision. Herein also, the Tribunal tried to differentiate the categories of the vehicles on the basis of weight. These categories existed before 14.11.1994. Two distinct categories of motor vehicles for the purposes of licences have been defined in the Motor Vehicles Act pursuant to the amendment of 14.11.1994. Separate licences have been prescribed for driving a light motor vehicle and a transport vehicle. Before the amendment of 1994, different categories of transport vehicles were prescribed on the basis of the weight of the vehicle. That distinction has been removed by the amendment. Therefore, the view taken by the Tribunal holding that the driver Ramesh Kumar was authorised to drive the jeep as its weight was lesser than 7500 Kgs. is totally unjustified and cannot be sustained. 7. Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be accepted and is hereby allowed. The judgment cum award 30.9.2010 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Banswara in M.A.C. No. 338/2007 is set aside to the extent the appellant Insurance Company was held jointly and severally responsible to satisfy the award with the owner and driver of the vehicle involved in the accident. The appellant Insurance Company is exonerated from liability to satisfy the award. Applying the principle of pay and recover as propounded by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. The appellant Insurance Company is exonerated from liability to satisfy the award. Applying the principle of pay and recover as propounded by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh reported in 2004 ACJ 1 and since decree has already been executed, it is hereby directed that the appellant shall be entitled to recover the same from the vehicle owner by filing execution proceedings directly before the Tribunal.The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.Stay application is rejected.Appeal allowed. *******