JUDGMENT Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. This appeal has been preferred by the insurance company challenging the award rendered by the Tribunal on 21.8.2012 to the tune of Rs.3.75 lakh along with simple interest of 7 percent, per annum, from the date of institution of petition. 2. All the respondents have sufficiently been served but none turns up on their behalf. So, this Court has taken the appeal for hearing. 3. The only contention of learned counsel is that the offending vehicle was a passenger bus, which was being driven by its driver Mr. Udai Singh, who was not holding a valid driving licence at the relevant time, because the paper, produced under the signature of Licensing Authority, Motor Vehicle Department, Rishikesh, shows that the licence to drive the ‘light motor vehicle’ was issued to Mr. Udai Singh on 1.2.1992 which was valid up to 6.6.2012. 4. He has further pointed out that although, such licence was endorsed by the competent officer for driving the ‘heavy goods vehicle’ with effect from 5.1.1995, including the hill roads, but the driver holding such a licence could not have driven the passenger vehicle like a bus. 5. It was further contended that the policy issued by the insurance company has a specific mention that the package of such policy was for the commercial vehicles and the type of such vehicles was further elucidated as the ‘Passenger Carrying’. So, this way, the liability could not have been fastened upon the appellant on account of deficiency of proper driving licence with the driver. It was further urged that the driving licence, though was endorsed for the ‘heavy goods vehicle’ but the person holding such a licence could not be permitted to drive the ‘heavy passenger vehicle’. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance upon two judgments. 6. The first one is by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of ‘The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Sri Kesar Singh Bisht & others’ 2009 (2) U.D. 39 , but in my view, the said precedent is at all not applicable in the present controversy for the reason that the offending vehicle was registered as the ‘transport vehicle’ and was insured as the goods/commercial vehicle while the driver, thereof, was holding only a ‘Learner Driving Licence” for ‘non-transport light motor vehicles’. 7. 7. In the present case, the driver was holding the licence for ‘heavy goods vehicle’ and not the non-transport light motor vehicles. So, no benefit of the said precedent can be given to the appellant. 8. The next precedent relied upon by the learned counsel is of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ‘New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir & another’ 2008 (3) TAC 20 (S.C.), but in the opinion of this Court, such precedent too is inapplicable in the present controversy, for the reason that the offending vehicle, therein, was an ‘Auto rickshaw delivery van’ whereas its driver was holding the licence to drive ‘light motor vehicles only’, so the Apex Court was of the view that the ‘light motor vehicle’ would not include a ‘light transport vehicle’. 9. In the case, in hand, Mr. Udai Singh, the driver, was holding licence for driving the ‘heavy goods vehicle’ w.e.f. 5.1.1995 which was also valid for ‘hill roads’. The Court feels that a person, who was competent to drive the ‘heavy goods vehicle’, could drive the ‘heavy passenger vehicle’ as well and in an efficient manner. So, exonerating the insurance company, from bearing the liability, will not be justified in my view. 10. All told, the appeal is devoid of any merit and it is hereby dismissed. Interim order dated 31.10.2012 stands vacated accordingly. 11. Let the original file be remitted to the concerned Tribunal, along with a copy of this judgment, which will disburse the amount of compensation to the claimants as per their respective shares. 12. The amount lying deposited in this Court, in the form of statutory deposit, be also remitted back to the concerned Tribunal forthwith for the purpose of disbursement.