JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. 1. This appeal is directed against award, dated 16th December, 2014, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I), Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. (for short "the Tribunal") in MACP No. 114-K/13/2011, titled as Subhi Singh and Another vs. Kartar Singh and Others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,57,000/- 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 claimants and the insurer came to be saddled with liability (for short “the impugned award”). 2. The owners-insured 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-insurer has questioned the impugned award on the grounds taken in the memo of the appeal. 4. The claimants have called in question the impugned award by the medium of cross objections on the ground of adequacy of compensation. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. The impugned award merits to be upheld and the appeal as well as the cross-objections is to be dismissed for the following reasons. 7. The claimants filed claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act”) for grant of compensation as per the breakups given in the claim petition on the ground that they lost their son, in the vehicular accident, which had occurred due to the use of tractor, bearing registration No. HP-36-3462, on 18th October, 2010, in which deceased-Karan Singh, who was driving the offending vehicle, sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. 8. The respondents resisted the claim petition on the grounds taken in the respective memo of objections. 9. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal: “1. Whether Karan Singh on 18.10.2010 at 9.40 a.m. at Maroh Ghat (Dohab) had passed away due to use of the Vehicle No. HP-36-3462? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to and from whom? OPP 3. Whether driver of the tractor was not holding effective and valid driving licence at the time of accident? OPR 4. Whether tractor No. HP-36-3462 was being driven without valid registration-cum- fitness certificate and route permit? OPR 5. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR 6. OPP 3. Whether driver of the tractor was not holding effective and valid driving licence at the time of accident? OPR 4. Whether tractor No. HP-36-3462 was being driven without valid registration-cum- fitness certificate and route permit? OPR 5. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR 6. Relief.” 10. Parties have led evidence. 11. The Tribunal after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, awarded compensation in favour of the claimants in terms of the impugned award and saddled the appellant-insurer with liability. Hence, the appeal. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurer contested the impugned award on the following two grounds: (i) That the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the same; (ii) That the offending vehicle was not having a valid fitness certificate. 13. The dispute involved in the instant appeal and the cross-objections revolves around Issues Nos. 2, 3 and 4 only. There is no challenge to the findings returned by the Tribunal on Issue No. 1, thus, the same are upheld. 14. I have gone through the record. It is apt to record herein that the Tribunal has wrongly recorded in the impugned award that the insurer has not led any evidence. Perusal of the record does disclose that the insurer has examined RW-1, Shri Sanjeev Singh, Licensing Clerk from the office of RLA Dehra and RW-2, Shri Sachin Walia, Junior Clerk from the office of RLA, Dharamshala. 15. RW-2, Shri Sachin Walia, Junior Clerk from the office of RLA, Dharamshala, has deposed that the driver of the offending vehicle, i.e. deceased-Karan Singh, was competent to drive light motor vehicle. 16. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurer further argued that the driving licence was not having an endorsement. The said argument is not tenable for the following reasons. 17. 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. vs. Muhammad Sidiq Kuchey & Others, 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. Ltd. vs. Muhammad Sidiq Kuchey & Others, 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 Noorud-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. 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). 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.” 18. 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 & Others vs. Smt. Santosh & Others, 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 semitrailer 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 semitrailer and a sidecar, 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, maxicab, medium goods vehicle, medium passenger motor vehicle, motorcab, motorcycle, omnibus, private service vehicle, semitrailer, tourist vehicle, tractor, trailer and transport vehicle.” 19. The Apex Court in another case titled as National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Annappa Irappa Nesaria & Others, 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. 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. 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.” 20. The Apex Court in the latest judgment in the case titled as Kulwant Singh & Others vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. reported in JT 2014 (12) SC 110, held that PSV endorsement is not required. 21. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant-insurer that the driver was not competent to drive the offending vehicle, i.e. tractor, is devoid of any force for the reason that this Court in FAO No. 187 of 2010, titled as Baldev Singh vs. Jagdish Chand & Another, decided on 8th April, 2016, has held that tractor falls within the definition of light motor vehicle. 22. The same principle has been laid down by this Court in the cases titled as Oriental Insurance Company vs. Gulam Mohammad (since deceased) & Others, reported in Latest HLJ 2014 (HP) 244; Joginder Singh @ Pamma vs. Vikram @ Vickey and Others, reported in Latest HLJ 2014 (HP) Suppl. 292 and Oriental Insurance Company vs. Sudesh Kumari and Others, reported in 2014 (2) Shim. LC 918. 23. Having said so, the findings recorded by the Tribunal on Issue No. 3 are upheld for the reasons recorded hereinabove. 24. It was for the insurer to plead and prove that the offending vehicle was not having fitness certificate and that was the cause of the accident. LC 918. 23. Having said so, the findings recorded by the Tribunal on Issue No. 3 are upheld for the reasons recorded hereinabove. 24. It was for the insurer to plead and prove that the offending vehicle was not having fitness certificate and that was the cause of the accident. No evidence to this extent has been led by the insurer. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly returned findings on issue No. 4 and the same are, accordingly, upheld. 25. The amount awarded is just and cannot be said to be inadequate. 26. Having glance of the above discussions, the impugned award is upheld and the appeal as well as the cross-objections is dismissed. 27. Registry is directed to release the awarded amount in favour of the claimants strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award through payees account cheque or by depositing the same in their respective bank accounts. 28. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on Tribunals file.