JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. 1. These appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 have been filed by the appellant Insurance Company aggrieved against the judgment and awards dated 30.3.2016, whereby, the applications for compensation filed by the claimants have been accepted and Insurance Company has been held liable for making payment of the amount of compensation. 2. The applications were filed by Jeti Devi and others, Heero Devi & others inter-alia seeking compensation for death of Sona Ram, Devendra & Ugra Ram with the averments that on 18.7.2012 at about 7.00 p.m. three persons Sona Ram, Devendra & Ugra Ram were travelling in Car No. RJ-04-CB-0027 when the offending Tanker No. RJ-13-GA-5603, which was being driving rashly & negligently by Kala Singh, collided with the said Car, resulting in grievous injuries to the said three persons along with other occupants. All the three persons died on the spot. Based on the above averments, various amounts of compensation were sought. 3. Reply was filed to the applications by owner & driver of the offending vehicle denying the averments made in the application and alleging that the driver of the Car was negligent, which resulted in the accident and death; as the vehicle was insured, the Insurance Company was liable to make payment of compensation. The non-claimant Insurance Company also filed its response denying the averments made in the application and in additional pleas it was indicated that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Car; the driver of the Tanker was not in possession of a valid and effective driving licence, the vehicle was being operated without permit and fitness and as the policy conditions have been violated, the Insurance Company is not liable. 4. Based on the averments made by the parties, four issues were framed, on behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and on behalf of non-claimants three witnesses were examined. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Tanker, which resulted in death of Ugra Ram, Sona Ram and Devendra. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Tanker, which resulted in death of Ugra Ram, Sona Ram and Devendra. The objection regarding validity of the driving licence on account of the fact that licence of the driver did not bear any endorsement permitting him to driver a transport vehicle carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous nature, the Tribunal though held that the driver did not have requisite licence, however, came to the conclusion that on account of lack of such endorsement, it cannot be said that absence of endorsement contributed to the accident and found that the absence of endorsement was not violation of the policy condition. While assessing the amount of compensation, amounts under various heads were awarded to the claimants. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal committed an error in holding the Insurance Company liable despite coming to the conclusion that the driver was not in possession of the licence as required by the provisions of Section 14(2)(a) of the Act and, therefore, the judgment impugned deserves to be set aside. 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the material available on record. 7. On the query made to the learned counsel as to whether the Tanker at the time of accident was empty or was carrying hazardous goods, a letter received from the owner of the vehicle has been placed for perusal, wherein, it was specifically indicated that the Tanker was empty at the time of accident. 8. Relevant provision of the Act reads as under: "14. Currency of licences to drive motor vehicles.- (1) A learner's licence issued under this Act shall, subject to the other provisions of this Act, be effective for a period of six months from the date of issue of the licence. 8. Relevant provision of the Act reads as under: "14. Currency of licences to drive motor vehicles.- (1) A learner's licence issued under this Act shall, subject to the other provisions of this Act, be effective for a period of six months from the date of issue of the licence. (2) A driving licence issued or renewed under this Act shall:- (a) in the case of a licence to drive a transport vehicle, be effective for a period of three years: Provided that in the case of licence to drive a transport vehicle carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous nature be effective for a period of one year and renewal thereof shall be subject to the condition that the driver undergoes one day refresher course of the prescribed syllabus." 9. A bare look at the provision reveals that the requirement of licence under the said provision is to drive a transport vehicle carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous nature. The word "carrying" is significant i.e. if at the relevant time the vehicle is filled with dangerous or hazardous nature goods, the endorsement in this regard on the licence of the driver of such vehicle is necessary, however, if at the relevant time the vehicle is empty and is not carrying dangerous or hazardous nature goods, the requirement of endorsement on the driving licence is not necessary and the driver having driving licence to drive transport vehicle is entitled to drive such a vehicle and in case at the time of accident the vehicle is empty and is not carrying dangerous or hazardous nature goods, a person having driving licence to drive that vehicle, would not be violating the requirement of law and consequently conditions of policy of having valid and effective licence with the driver at the time of accident. 10. As noticed hereinbefore, the Tanker at the relevant time was empty and was not carrying dangerous or hazardous nature goods and driver was in possession of a driving licence to drive the transport vehicle and, therefore, it cannot be said that there was violation of any policy condition. 11. In view thereof, there is no substance in the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant. 12. No other point was argued. 13. In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the appeals, the same are, therefore, dismissed.