JUDGMENT Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Both these appeals are outcome of a common judgment and award dated 13.8.2007, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, H.P. in MAC Case No. 104 of 2004, titled Smt. Anita and others versus The Truck Co-operative and Operator Goods Carrier Transport Society Ltd and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.6,06,346/- came to be awarded in favour of the claimants against the owner, namely, The Truck Co-operative and Operator Goods Carrier Transport Society Ltd., New Nangal, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Ropar (Pb). and the driver jointly and severally, hereinafter referred to as “the impugned award”, for short, on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 2. The owner, by the medium of FAO No. 522 of 2007 has questioned the impugned award on the ground that the Tribunal has fallen in an error in saddling it with the liability and discharging the Insurance Company. 3. The claimants, by the medium of FAO No. 443 of 2007, have questioned the impugned award on the ground of adequacy of compensation. 4. I have gone through the claim petition, evidence recorded and the impugned award. I am of the considered view that the impugned award is legal one and compensation awarded is adequate and cannot be said to be inadequate in any way. 5. The Tribunal, while deciding Issue No. 1 has held that the accident was outcome of the contributory negligence and held that the claimants are entitled to compensation as awarded which is not inadequate, in any way. 6. The Tribunal has fallen in error in saddling the owner with the liability for the reasons that the driver was competent to drive heavy goods vehicle while the vehicle involved in the accident was a light motor vehicle. It is not understood if the driver, who is competent to drive a heavy goods vehicle, cannot drive a light motor vehicle. This issue has already been dealt with by this Court in FAO No. 196 of 2008 titled Sarwan Singh versus Bimla Sharma and others along with connected matter, reported in Latest HLJ 2014 (HP) 584, in para 29 and 30. It is profitable to reproduce paras 29 and 30 of the said judgment herein:- “28. This issue has already been dealt with by this Court in FAO No. 196 of 2008 titled Sarwan Singh versus Bimla Sharma and others along with connected matter, reported in Latest HLJ 2014 (HP) 584, in para 29 and 30. It is profitable to reproduce paras 29 and 30 of the said judgment herein:- “28. Thus, the question, which arises for consideration, is –whether a driver, who is competent to drive a 'heavy goods vehicle', the gross and unladen weight of which is more than 12,000 kilograms, can drive a 'light motor vehicle', the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7500 kilograms? The answer is in affirmative. 29. While going through Sections 2 and 3 of the MV Act, one comes to an inescapable conclusion that the requirement, as per the law, is that the driver has to first obtain learner's licence, thereafter he can obtain other types/kinds of driving licences. In terms of mandate of Section 7 of the MV Act, a person can be granted licence to drive a transport vehicle provided he is holding a driving licence to drive a light motor vehicle for at least one year.” 7. In the given circumstances, the owner has wrongly been saddled with the liability and the insurance company came to be wrongly discharged. 8. Having said so, the impugned award is modified to the extent that the insurance company is saddled with the liability and the owner is discharged from the liability. The Insurance company is directed to deposit the amount within six weeks from today in the Registry. On deposit, the same be released in favour of the claimants, strictly, in terms of the conditions contained in the impugned award, through payee’s cheque account, after proper identification. The amount of Rs.25,000/-deposited by the appellant-owner be also released in favour of the claimants, as costs of the litigation. 9. Accordingly, both the appeals stand disposed of, as indicated above, alongwith pending applications. Send down the record, forthwith.