JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Subject matter of this appeal is award, dated 19th May, 2012, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II Shimla, H.P., Camp at Rohru (for short “the Tribunal”) in M.A.C. No. 35-R/2 of 2008, titled as Meera Devi and others versus Sanjeev Kumar and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,45,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till its realization alongwith costs of litigation assessed at Rs. 5,000/- came to be awarded in favour of the claimants, respondents No. 1 to 3 in the claim petition, i.e. the contractor, owner-insured and driver of the offending vehicle, were saddled with liability and insurer came to be exonerated (for short “the impugned award”). 2. The claimants, contractor and the insurer of the offending vehicle have not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus, has attained finality so far it relates to them. 3. Appellants/owner-insured and driver of the offending vehicle have called in question the impugned award on the grounds taken in the memo of the appeal. 4. The only question to be determined in this appeal is – whether the Tribunal has rightly exonerated the insurer from its liability? The answer is in the negative for the following reasons: 5. Admittedly, the offending vehicle was a JCB, bearing registration No. HP-16A-0365 which was being driven by its driver, namely Shri Sanjeev Kumar, rashly and negligently, at the time of the accident, i.e. on 25th October, 2007, at Shilapani-Mundidhar road, due to which deceased-Visheshar Singh sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. 6. This Court in FAO (MVA) No. 247 of 2009, titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Sharda Devi and others, decided on 8th January, 2016, while relying upon the various judgments rendered by the Apex Court and other High Courts, has held that JCB is a motor vehicle. 7. As per the registration certificate, Ext. RW-1/A, the unladen weight of the offending vehicle, i.e. JCB, is 7460 kilograms, thus, falls within the definition of 'light motor vehicle’ in terms of Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for short 'MV Act’. 8. A Division Bench of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Srinagar, of which I (Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice) was a member, in a case titled as National Insurance Co. 8. A Division Bench of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Srinagar, of which I (Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice) was a member, in a case titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Muhammad Sidiq Kuchey & ors., being LPA No. 180 of 2002, decided on 27th September, 2007, has discussed this issue and held that a driver having licence to drive “LMV” requires no “PSV” endorsement. It is apt to reproduce the relevant portion of the judgment herein: “The question now arises as to whether the driver who possessed driving licence for driving abovementioned vehicles, could he drive a passenger vehicle? The answer, I find, in the judgment passed by this court in case titled National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Irfan Sidiq Bhat, 2004 (II) SLJ 623, wherein it is held that Light Motor Vehicle includes transport vehicle and transport vehicle includes public service vehicle and public service vehicle includes any motor vehicle used or deemed to be used for carriage of passengers. Further held, that the authorization of having PSV endorsement in terms of Rule 41 (a) of the Rules is not required in the given circumstances. It is profitable to reproduce paras 13 and 17 of the judgment hereunder:- “13. A combined reading of the above provisions leaves no room for doubt that by virtue of licence, about which there is no dispute, both Showkat Ahamd and Zahoor Ahmad were competent in terms of section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act to drive a public service vehicle without any PSV endorsement and express authorization in terms of rule 4 (1) (a) of the State Rules. In other words, the requirement of the State Rules stood satisfied. …....................... 17. In the case of Mohammad Aslam Khan (CIMA no. 87 of 2002) Peerzada Noor-ud-Din appearing as witness on behalf of Regional Transport Officer did say on recall for further examination that PSV endorsement on the licence of Zahoor Ahmad was fake. In our opinion, the fact that the PSV endorsement on the licence was fake is not at all material, for, even if the claim is considered on the premise that there was no PSV endorsement on the licence, for the reasons stated above, it would not materially affect the claim. By virtue of “C to E” licence Showkat Ahmad was competent to drive a passenger vehicle. By virtue of “C to E” licence Showkat Ahmad was competent to drive a passenger vehicle. In fact, there is no separate definition of passenger vehicle or passenger service vehicle in the Motor Vehicles Act. They come within the ambit of public service vehicle under section 2 (35). A holder of driving licence with respect to “light Motor Vehicle” is thus competent to drive any motor vehicle used or adapted to be used for carriage of passengers i.e. a public service vehicle.” In the given circumstances of the case PSV endorsement was not required at all.” 9. The mandate of Sections 2 and 3 of the MV Act came up for consideration before the Apex Court in a case titled as Chairman, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & ors. versus Smt. Santosh & Ors., reported in 2013 AIR SCW 2791, and after examining the various provisions of the MV Act held that Section 3 of the Act casts an obligation on the driver to hold an effective driving licence for the type of vehicle, which he intends to drive. It is apt to reproduce paras 19 and 23 of the judgment herein: “19. Section 2 (2) of the Act defines articulated vehicle which means a motor vehicle to which a semi-trailer is attached; Section 2 (34) defines public place; Section 2 (44) defines 'tractor' as a motor vehicle which is not itself constructed to carry any load; Section 2 (46) defines 'trailer' which means any vehicle, other than a semi- trailer and a side-car, drawn or intended to be drawn by a motor vehicle. Section 3 of the Act provides for necessity for driving license; Section 5 provides for responsibility of owners of the vehicle for contravention of Sections 3 and 4; Section 6 provides for restrictions on the holding of driving license; Section 56 provides for compulsion for having certificate of fitness for transport vehicles; Section 59 empowers the State to fix the age limit of the vehicles; Section 66 provides for necessity for permits to ply any vehicle for any commercial purpose; Section 67 empowers the State to control road transport; Section 112 provides for limits of speed; Sections 133 and 134 imposes a duty on the owners and the drivers of the vehicles in case of accident and injury to a person; Section 146 provides that no person shall use any vehicle at a public place unless the vehicle is insured. In addition thereto, the Motor Vehicle Taxation Act provides for imposition of passenger tax and road tax etc. 20. …....................... 21. …...................... 22. …..................... 23. Section 3 of the Act casts an obligation on a driver to hold an effective driving license for the type of vehicle which he intends to drive. Section 10 of the Act enables the Central Government to prescribe forms of driving licenses for various categories of vehicles mentioned in sub-section (2) of the said Section. The definition clause in Section 2 of the Act defines various categories of vehicles which are covered in broad types mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 10. They are 'goods carriage', 'heavy goods vehicle', 'heavy passenger motor vehicle', 'invalid carriage', 'light motor vehicle', 'maxi-cab', 'medium goods vehicle', 'medium passenger motor vehicle', 'motor-cab', 'motorcycle', 'omnibus', 'private service vehicle', 'semi-trailer', 'tourist vehicle', 'tractor', 'trailer' and 'transport vehicle'.” 10. The Apex Court in another case titled as National Insurance Company Ltd. versus Annappa Irappa Nesaria & Ors., reported in 2008 AIR SCW 906, has also discussed the purpose of amendments, which were made in the year 1994 and the definitions of 'light motor vehicle', 'medium goods vehicle' and the necessity of having a driving licence. It is apt to reproduce paras 8, 14 and 16 of the judgment herein: “8. Mr. S.N. Bhat, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the contention raised herein by the appellant has neither been raised before the Tribunal nor before the High Court. It is apt to reproduce paras 8, 14 and 16 of the judgment herein: “8. Mr. S.N. Bhat, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the contention raised herein by the appellant has neither been raised before the Tribunal nor before the High Court. In any event, it was urged, that keeping in view the definition of the 'light motor vehicle' as contained in Section 2 (21) of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988 ('Act' for short), a light goods carriage would come within the purview thereof. A 'light goods carriage' having not been defined in the Act, the definition of the 'light motor vehicle' clearly indicates that it takes within its umbrage, both a transport vehicle and a non-transport vehicle. Strong reliance has been placed in this behalf by the learned counsel in Ashok Gangadhar Maratha vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., [ 1999 (6) SCC 620 ]. 9. ….................. 10. …............... 11. …............... 12. ….............. 13. ….............. 14. Rule 14 prescribes for filing of an application in Form 4, for a licence to drive a motor vehicle, categorizing the same in nine types of vehicles. Clause (e) provides for 'Transport vehicle' which has been substituted by G.S.R. 221 (E) with effect from 28.3.2001. Before the amendment in 2001, the entries medium goods vehicle and heavy goods vehicle existed which have been substituted by transport vehicle. As noticed hereinbefore, Light Motor Vehicles also found place therein. 15. ….......................... 16. From what has been noticed hereinbefore, it is evident that 'transport vehicle' has now been substituted for 'medium goods vehicle' and 'heavy goods vehicle'. The light motor vehicle continued, at the relevant point of time, to cover both, 'light passenger carriage vehicle' and 'light goods carriage vehicle'. A driver who had a valid licence to drive a light motor vehicle, therefore, was authorised to drive a light goods vehicle as well.” 11. The Apex Court in the case titled as Kulwant Singh & Ors. versus Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., reported in JT 2014 (12) SC 110, has held that PSV endorsement is not required. 12. The same principle has been laid down by this Court in a series of cases. 13. The Apex Court in the case titled as Kulwant Singh & Ors. versus Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., reported in JT 2014 (12) SC 110, has held that PSV endorsement is not required. 12. The same principle has been laid down by this Court in a series of cases. 13. I deem it proper to record herein that in the year 2000, an amendment has taken place in the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short “MV Rules”) and sub-clause (ca) came to be inserted in Rule 2 of the MV Rules. It is apt to reproduce Rule 2 (ca) of the MV Rules herein: “2. …........ (ca) “construction equipment vehicle” means rubber tyred, (including pneumatic tyred), rubber padded or steel drum wheel mounted, self-propelled, excavator, loader, backhoe, compactor roller, dumper, motor grader, mobile crane, dozer, fork lift truck, self-loading concrete mixer or any other construction equipment vehicle or combination thereof designed for off-highway operations in mining, industrial undertaking, irrigation and general construction but modified and manufactured with “on or off” or “on and off” highway capabilities. Explanation. - A construction equipment vehicle shall be a non-transport vehicle the driving on the road of which is incidental to the main off-highway function and for a short duration at a speed not exceeding 50 kms per hour, but such vehicle does not include other purely off-highway construction equipment vehicle designed and adopted for use in any enclosed premises, factory or mine other than road network, not equipped to travel on public roads on their own power.” 14. From the perusal of the said provision of law, one comes to an inescapable conclusion that the construction equipment vehicles have been declared as non-transport vehicles. 15. Having said so, the offending vehicle, i.e. JCB, being a construction equipment vehicle, is a non-transport vehicle. 16. Viewed thus, the Tribunal has fallen in an error in holding that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the relevant point of time. 17. Even otherwise, it was for the insurer to plead and prove that the offending vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the owner-insured has committed a willful breach, has not led any evidence, thus, has failed to discharge the onus. 18. 17. Even otherwise, it was for the insurer to plead and prove that the offending vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the owner-insured has committed a willful breach, has not led any evidence, thus, has failed to discharge the onus. 18. Accordingly, it is held that the driver of the offending vehicle was having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the same at the relevant point of time and the owner-insured has not committed any breach, not to speak of willful breach. 19. The factum of insurance is admitted. Thus, the insurer is saddled with liability. 20. Having said so, the impugned award is modified by holding that the insurer has to satisfy the impugned award. 21. The insurer is directed to deposit the awarded amount within eight weeks from today before the Registry. On deposit, the Registry is directed to release the same in favour of the claimants strictly in terms of conditions contained in the impugned award through payees account cheque or by depositing the same in their respective accounts. 22. The statutory amount deposited by the appellants be paid to the claimants through payees account cheque or by depositing the same in their respective accounts after proper identification. 23. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. 24. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on the Tribunal's file.