JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Subject matter of this appeal is judgment and award, dated 30th July 2010, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P. (for short "the Tribunal") in MAC Petition No. 41N/2 of 2008, titled as Sh. Pawan Kumar versus Lalit Pandey and others, whereby compensation to the tune of 2,65,849/with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization came to be awarded in favour of the claimant-injured and the insurer came to be saddled with liability (for short “the impugned award”). 2. The claimant-injured, owner-insured and the driver of the offending vehicle have not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus, has attained finality so far it relates to them. 3. The appellant-insured has questioned the impugned award on the ground that the owner-insured has committed breach in terms of the mandate of Sections 147 to 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act”) read with the terms and conditions contained in the insurance policy. 4. Thus, the only question to be determined in this appeal is – whether the Tribunal has rightly saddled the appellant-insurer with liability? 5. In order to determine this issue, it is necessary to give a flashback of the case, the womb of which has given birth to the instant appeal. 6. The claimant-injured invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for grant of compensation on the ground that he became the victim of a motor vehicular accident, which was allegedly caused by the driver, namely Shri Chottan Singh, while driving tractor, bearing registration No. HP17B9546 on 11th December, 2006, at about 8.30 P.M. near Batapul, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur. 7. The claim petition was resisted by the respondents on the grounds taken in the respective memo of objections. 8. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal on 26th November, 2008:- “1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in an accident, which was the result of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by respondent No. 2, as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, to what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled to and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR1&2 4. Whether the petition is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties? OPR1&2 5. OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, to what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled to and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR1&2 4. Whether the petition is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties? OPR1&2 5. Whether the driver was not holding an valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident? OPR3 6. Whether the driver of the vehicle was being driven in violation of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy at the relevant time? OPR3 7. Relief.” 9. Parties have led evidence. Issue No. 1: 10. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, held that the claimant-injured has proved issue No. 1, which is not in dispute. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 1 are upheld. 11. Before I deal with issue No. 2, I deem it proper to determine issues No. 3 to 6. Issues No. 3 and 4: 12. It was for respondents No. 1 and 2 in the claim petition, i.e. the owner-insured and the driver of the offending vehicle, to prove issues No. 3 and 4, have not led any evidence to this effect, thus, have failed to discharge the onus. They have not questioned the findings made by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issues No. 3 and 4 are upheld. Issues No. 5 and 6: 13. It was for the insurer to prove that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle and the same was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions contained in the insurance policy, has failed to discharge the onus . The record does disclose that the driver of the offending vehicle was having a driving licence to drive a tractor. 14. The discussion made by the Tribunal in paras 31 to 33 of the impugned award is correct, need no interference for the following reasons: 15. The tractor is a motor vehicle in terms of the definition given in Section 2(44) of the MV Act, which reads as under: “2. …...... (44) “tractor” means a motor vehicle which is not itself constructed to carry any load (other than equipment used for the purpose of propulsion); but excludes a roadroller.” 16. The tractor is a motor vehicle in terms of the definition given in Section 2(44) of the MV Act, which reads as under: “2. …...... (44) “tractor” means a motor vehicle which is not itself constructed to carry any load (other than equipment used for the purpose of propulsion); but excludes a roadroller.” 16. It would also be profitable to reproduce the definition of 'trailer' given in Section 2(46) of the MV Act herein:- “2. …....... (46) “trailer” means any vehicle, other than a semitrailer and a sidecar, drawn or intended to be drawn by a motor vehicle.” 17. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant-insurer that the offending vehicle was being driven in breach of the terms and conditions contained in the insurance policy is devoid of any force for the reason that this Court in FAO No. 187 of 2010, titled as Baldev Singh versus Jagdish Chand & another, decided on 8th April, 2016, has held that tractor falls within the definition of 'light motor vehicle'. 18. The same principle has been laid down by this Court in the cases titled as Oriental Insurance Company versus Gulam Mohammad (since deceased) & others, reported in Latest HLJ 2014 (HP) 244; Joginder Singh @ Pamma versus Vikram @ Vickey and others, reported in Latest HLJ 2014 (HP) Suppl. 292; and Oriental Insurance Company versus Sudesh Kumari and others, reported in 2014 (2) Shim. LC 918. 19. The insurance policy is on the record as Ext. RW1/D. While going through the insurance policy, one comes to an inescapable conclusion that the tractor alongwith trolley was insured with the appellant-insurer at the relevant point of time. 20. Having said so, the Tribunal has rightly made the discussion while deciding issues No. 5 and 6. Even otherwise, the appellant-insurer has not led any evidence to prove how the risk of trolley of the tractor was not covered in terms of the insurance policy. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issues No. 5 and 6 are upheld. Issue No. 2: 21. The quantum of compensation is not in dispute, thus, the same is upheld. 22. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the appellant-insurer has rightly been saddled with liability and the Tribunal has not fallen in an error. 23. Having glance of the above discussions, the impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. 24. Issue No. 2: 21. The quantum of compensation is not in dispute, thus, the same is upheld. 22. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the appellant-insurer has rightly been saddled with liability and the Tribunal has not fallen in an error. 23. Having glance of the above discussions, the impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. 24. Registry is directed to release the awarded amount in favour of the claimant-injured strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award through payee's account cheque or by depositing the same in his bank account. 25. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on Tribunal's file.