JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, Judge: This appeal is instituted against award dated 21.1.2013, rendered by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh in MAC Petition No. 6/11. 2. Pertinent facts necessary for the adjudication of the appeal are that respondents No.1 to 3 (herein after referred to as ‘claimants’) have filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation on account of death of Amit Kumar. Amit Kumar died in an accident on 15.11.2010 at village Ambota, Tehsil Amb, district Una, Himachal Pradesh. According to the claimants, on 15.11.2010 at 7.15 am, Amit Kumar alongwith Sachin Kumar was going to Gagret on a bicycle, which was being driven by Sachin Kumar. Amit Kumar was the pillion rider. In the meantime, a truck bearing registration No. HP12D-3149, being driven by respondent No. 4, Shri Paramjit Singh came in a high speed from Daulatpur side and hit the bicycle on the backside in the Kucha portion of the road. Amit Kumar received multiple injuries on his body and died. The post mortem was conducted on 15.11.2010. Age of the deceased was 12 years at the time of accident. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record of the case carefully. 4. Appellant and respondent No.4 filed separate replies. According to them, the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the rider of the bicycle. Respondent No. 5, the New India Insurance Company Limited also filed reply. According to the reply, the driver was not holding valid driving licence. There was violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 5. Claimants filed rejoinder to the replies filed by the respondents. Learned Tribunal framed issues on 7.3.2012 and awarded a compensation of Rs.2,80,000/- to the claimants with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the petition. Hence, this appeal by the owner of the vehicle. Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has framed the following issues on 7.3.2012: “3. Whether the respondent No. 1 was not holding effective and valid driving licence at the time of accident? .. OPR3? … OPR-3. 4. Whether the vehicle was being plied in violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance policy? … OP.3” 6. PW2 Dr. S.K. Bansal, has proved the post mortem report Ex. Whether the respondent No. 1 was not holding effective and valid driving licence at the time of accident? .. OPR3? … OPR-3. 4. Whether the vehicle was being plied in violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance policy? … OP.3” 6. PW2 Dr. S.K. Bansal, has proved the post mortem report Ex. PW2/A. PW1, Naveen Kumar has proved the copy of FIR Ex. PW1/A. PW-3, Sachin Kumar has testified the manner in which accident has taken place. PW-4, Vimla Devi has deposed that her son died on 15.11.2010 at 7.15 am. It is stated by RW1, Paramjit that one bus was dropping passengers and he had stopped the truck behind the bus. In the meantime, two boys came on a bicycle in a high speed. The bicycle was going towards slope and it hit the bumper of the truck. The pillion rider had jumped from the bicycle. Both the boys were taken to the hospital with the help of local people. 7. Statement of PW1 has not been correctly relied by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Respondent No.4 has failed to lead any cogent evidence to establish that the accident has not taken place due to his fault. It has been duly proved before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal that appellant was owner of the vehicle and it was insured with respondent No.5, The New India Insurance Company Limited. The Insurance Company has also placed on record copy of the insurance policy as Ex. RX. Vehicle in question was duly insured with the respondent No.5 at the time of accident. Respondent No. 4 at the time of accident was holding licence to drive LMV (Light Motor Vehicle). Mr. Naresh Thakur, learned Senior Advocate has vehemently argued that the driver was holding LMV licence. He could drive the transport vehicle The vehicle involved in the present case is a Truck. Thus, learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that respondent No. 4 was not possessing valid driving licence to drive the commercial vehicle i.e. Truck. Thus there was violation of the terms and conditions of the policy, Ex. RX. 8. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Angad Kol and others 2009 ACJ 1411 , have held as under: 8. Thus there was violation of the terms and conditions of the policy, Ex. RX. 8. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Angad Kol and others 2009 ACJ 1411 , have held as under: 8. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter called as `the Act') was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to motor vehicles. `Driving licence' has been defined in Section 2(10) to mean the licence issued by a competent authority under Chapter II authorizing the person specified therein to drive, otherwise than as a learner, a motor vehicle or a motor vehicle of any specified class or description. "Goods carriage" has been defined in Section 2(14) to mean any motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use solely for the carriage of goods, or any motor vehicle not so constructed or adapted when used for the carriage of goods. The said Act also defines `heavy goods vehicle', `heavy passenger motor vehicle', `medium goods vehicle' and `medium passenger motor vehicle' as well as a `light motor vehicle' in Section 2(21) of the Act to mean : 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 7500 kilograms." 9. Although the definition of the `light motor vehicle' brings within its umbrage both `transport vehicle' or `omnibus', indisputably, as would be noticed infra, a distinction between an effective licence granted for transport vehicle and passenger motor vehicle exists. Section 3 provides for the necessity of driveling licence, stating : "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 authorizing him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle other than a motor car or moter 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. Section 9 provides for grant of driving licence. Section 10 prescribes the form and contents of licences to drive which is to the following effect : "10. Section 9 provides for grant of driving licence. Section 10 prescribes the form and contents of licences to drive which is to the following effect : "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 classes, namely:- (a) to (c) ... (d) light motor vehicle; (e) transport vehicle; (i) road Roller; (j) motor vehicle of a specified description." 10. The distinction between a `light motor vehicle' and a `transport vehicle' is, therefore, evident. A transport vehicle may be a light motor vehicle but for the purpose of driving the same, a distinct licence is required to be obtained. The distinction between a `transport vehicle' and a `passenger vehicle' can also be noticed from Section 14 of the Act. Subsection (2) of Section 14 provides for duration of a period of three years in case of an effective licence to drive a `transport vehicle' whereas in case of any other licence, it may remain effective for a period of 20 years. 17. The effect of the different terms of licences granted in terms of the provisions of Section 2(14) and 2(47) has also been noticed by this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Prabhu Lal [ (2008) 1 SCC 696 ], stated : “21. Now, it is the case of the Insurance Company that the vehicle of the complainant which met with an accident was a 'transport vehicle'. It was submitted that the insured vehicle was a 'goods carriage' and was thus a 'transport vehicle'. The vehicle was driven by Ram Narain, who was authorized to drive Light Motor Vehicle and not a transport vehicle. Since the driver had no licence to drive transport vehicle in absence of necessary endorsement in his licence to that effect, he could not have driven Tata 709 and when that vehicle met with an accident, Insurance Company could not be made liable to pay compensation. 28. Since the driver had no licence to drive transport vehicle in absence of necessary endorsement in his licence to that effect, he could not have driven Tata 709 and when that vehicle met with an accident, Insurance Company could not be made liable to pay compensation. 28. Argument of the Insurance Company is that at the time of accident, Ram Narain had no valid and effective licence to drive Tata 709. Indisputably, Ram Narain was having a licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company, referring to various provisions of the Act submitted that if a person is having licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle, he cannot drive a transport vehicle unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do (Section 3). Clauses (14), (21), (28) and (47) of Section 2 make it clear that if a vehicle is 'Light Motor Vehicle', but falls under the category of Transport Vehicle, the driving licence has to be duly endorsed under Section 3 of the Act. If it is not done, a person holding driving licence to ply Light Motor Vehicle cannot ply transport vehicle. It is not in dispute that in the instant case, Ram Narain was having licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle. The licence was not endorsed as required and hence, he could not have driven Tata 709 in absence of requisite endorsement and Insurance Company could not be held liable. 29. We find considerable force in the submission of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company. We also find that the District Forum considered the question in its proper perspective and held that the vehicle driven by Ram Narain was covered by the category of transport vehicle under Clause (47) of Section 2 of the Act. Section 3, therefore, required the driver to have an endorsement which would entitle him to ply such vehicle. It is not even the case of the complainant that there was such endorsement and Ram Narain was allowed to ply transport vehicle. On the contrary, the case of the complainant was that it was Mohd. Julfikar who was driving the vehicle. To us, therefore, the District Forum was right in holding that Ram Narain could not have driven the vehicle in question. The Court distinguished its earlier judgment in Ashok Gangadhar Maratha v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2000 ACJ 319 (SC), stating : 32. Julfikar who was driving the vehicle. To us, therefore, the District Forum was right in holding that Ram Narain could not have driven the vehicle in question. The Court distinguished its earlier judgment in Ashok Gangadhar Maratha v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2000 ACJ 319 (SC), stating : 32. In our judgment, Ashok Gangadhar Maratha’s case, 2000 ACJ 319 (SC) did not lay down that the driver holding licence to drive a Light Motor Vehicle need not have an endorsement to drive transport vehicle and yet he can drive such vehicle. It was on the peculiar facts of the case, as the Insurance Company neither pleaded nor proved that the vehicle was transport vehicle by placing on record the permit issued by the Transport Authority that the Insurance Company was held liable. However, in this case, the finding of the fact arrived at that the vehicle in question was not proved to be a goods vehicle is not correct. The Regional Transport Officer, in hi deposition, stated that the vehicle in question was a goods vehicle. 18. From the discussions made hereinbefore, it is, thus, evident that it is proved that respondent No.6 did not hold a valid and effective driving licence for driving a goods vehicle. Breach of conditions of the insurance is, therefore, apparent on the face of the records. 9. In view of the discussion and analysis made herein above, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. No costs.