JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. These appeals are directed against judgment and award dated 22.08.2015 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Churu ('the Tribunal'), whereby, the Tribunal has accepted the applications for compensation and has awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation to Rajveer Singh towards loss of property and Rs. 5,35,500/- as compensation to Smt. Basanti Devi & others for death of Ranveer Singh along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of applications i.e. 02.06.2011 and 10.01.2011, respectively. 2. Applications for compensation were filed by the claimants with the averments that on 06.11.2010 Ranveer Singh along with his wife Basanti Devi and son Vijendra was riding Tempo RJ 10 PA 1685, being driven by Rajveer Singh, when one Canter Tata RJ 10 GA 2808, which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, struck the said Tempo, resulting in the passengers suffering grievous injuries, to which, Ranveer Singh succumbed. Based on the said averments, compensation for the damage of Tempo and for death of Ranveer Singh was claimed by the claimants. 3. Replies to the applications were filed by the owner and insurer of the vehicle. 4. The owner claimed that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by driver of the Tempo and that the liability, if any, is that of the Insurance Company. 5. The appellant Insurance Company filed its reply and contested its liability on account of alleged violation of policy conditions, inter alia, indicating that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence. 6. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed four issues. On behalf of the claimants two witnesses were examined and on behalf of the Insurance Company also two witnesses were examined. 7. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by driver of the Canter. While deciding the issue, pertaining to the liability of the Insurance Company, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the driving licence (Exhibit-15) indicated that the driver was authorized to drive transport vehicle for the period 31.03.2008 to 30.03.2011 and as the accident had occurred on 06.11.2010, he was in possession of valid driving licence and, consequently, found the appellant Insurance Company liable for making payment of compensation. 8. 8. While assessing the amount of compensation, it was found that the deceased was an agricultural labour and while taking the income as an unskilled workman at Rs. 135/- per day, the amount as indicated was awarded. Qua the claim made by the owner of the Tempo, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 25,000/- for the damage to the Tempo. 9. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the Driver of the insured vehicle was not in possession of a valid driving licence and on account of violation of policy condition, the Insurance Company is not liable. It was submitted that the vehicle in question was a medium transport vehicle, whereas, the driver was authorized to drive light motor vehicle only and, therefore, the Tribunal committed error in coming to the conclusion that the driver was in possession of a valid driving licence. 10. It was further submitted that NAW-1 Manoj Kumar and NAW-2 Mukesh Hisariya were examined. While Manoj Kumar was the District Transport Officer, Churu, Mukesh Hisariya was Senior Executive of the appellant Insurance Company, who have supported the version of the appellant and, therefore, as the driver was not in possession of a valid driving licence the Insurance Company was entitled to be exonerated from the liability to pay compensation. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents supported the award impugned. It was submitted that the plea raised by the appellant Insurance Company regarding the driver not being in possession of a valid driving licence is baseless, inasmuch as, there is a specific endorsement on Exhibit-15 - the driving licence of the driver, that he was authorized to drive transport vehicle and his licence was valid from 31.03.2008 to 30.03.2011 and, therefore, the appeals filed by the appellant Insurance Company deserve to be dismissed. 12. Reference was made to the cross-examination of Manoj Kumar NAW-1 in support of the contention. 13. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 14. A bare look at the licence (Exhibit-15) issued on 13.10.2006 reveals that the licence has been issued in the name of Nandu Singh Shekhawat and that he is licenced to drive throughout India a vehicle of LMV description. 13. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 14. A bare look at the licence (Exhibit-15) issued on 13.10.2006 reveals that the licence has been issued in the name of Nandu Singh Shekhawat and that he is licenced to drive throughout India a vehicle of LMV description. The licence further indicates that the licence to drive other than transport vehicle was valid from 30.11.1999 to 29.11.2019 and the licence to drive transport vehicle was valid from 31.03.2008 to 30.03.2011. 15. Reliance has been placed by the appellant on a report (Exhibit-NA/1) issued by the Licencing Authority, Churu, wherein, it has been indicated that the licence was valid for LMV commercial vehicle only and again it has been indicated that the licence in this regard was valid from 03.02.2005 to 02.02.2008, it was renewed on 31.03.2008 till 30.03.2011 and again renewed on 31.03.2011 to 20.03.2014. Much emphasis was laid on the fact and a submission was made that as the said report indicates that the validity of licence was qua LMV commercial vehicle, the endorsement regarding the validity of the licence for driving transport vehicle pertains to light transport vehicle only and as the vehicle in question is medium transport vehicle, the driver was not holding a valid driving licence. 16. The provisions of section 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 were amended vide Amendment Act 54 of 1994, whereby, the existing class of vehicles were amended and instead of light motor vehicle, medium goods vehicle, medium passenger motor vehicle, heavy goods vehicle and heavy passenger motor vehicle were deleted and only one category of transport vehicle was inserted. 17. The provisions of section 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 were amended vide Amendment Act 54 of 1994, whereby, the existing class of vehicles were amended and instead of light motor vehicle, medium goods vehicle, medium passenger motor vehicle, heavy goods vehicle and heavy passenger motor vehicle were deleted and only one category of transport vehicle was inserted. 17. Similarly in Form-IV, pertaining to the application for licence to drive a motor vehicle, instead of the medium goods vehicle, medium passenger motor vehicle, heavy goods vehicle and heavy passenger motor vehicle, the same were replaced by transport vehicle and, therefore, in those circumstances, the very fact that the driver Nandu Singh was, for the first time, granted licence to drive transport vehicle, even as per Exhibit-NA/1 in the year 2005, the same essentially would include transport vehicles of all nature and the same cannot be confined to light transport vehicle as claimed by counsel for the appellant, inasmuch as, the said category did not exists at the point of time when he was granted licence to drive transport vehicle. 18. 18. Manoj Kumar, D.T.O. in his cross-examination, inter alia, stated as under:- ^^;g lgh gS fd izn'kZ&15 gekjs foHkkx }kjk tkjh fd;k gqvk gS] tks fd 31-03-2008 dks tkjh fd;k gqvk gSA ;g lgh gS fd izn'kZ&15 esa , ls ch Hkkx dk bUnzkt gekjs foHkkx }kjk fd;k gqvk gSA tks lgh gS vadu gSA ;g lgh gS fd izn'kZ&15 es dgh Hkh dksbZ dfVax dh gqbZ ugh gSA ;g lgh gS fd izn'kZ&15 QthZ ugha gSA ;g lgh gS fd izn'kZ ,u,&01 esa 18-09-2013 ds vkxs dh rkjh[k vafdr ugha gSA ;g lgh gS fd izn'kZ ,u,&01 esa lh ls M+h LFkku laf{kIr esa V~kliksVZ fy[kk gqvk gSA vxzsth esa Vh0vkj0,0,u0,l0ih0vks0vkj0Vh0 V~kliksVZ bl izdkj gksrk gSA ;g lgh gS fd izn'kZ ,u,&01 esa lh ls M+h LFkku ^^Vhvkj,lu,l** fy[kk gqvk gSA ;g lgh gS fd izn'kZ ,u&01 esa ,yVhoh 'kCn vafdr ugha gSA ftl O;fDr ds ikl V~kliksVZ Oghdy dk ykblsUl gks rks og O;fDr dksbZ Hkh O;kolkf;d okgu pyk ldrk gSA ;g lgh gS fd ftl O;fDr ds ikl V~kliksVZ Oghdy dk ykblsUl gks og fdlh Hkh out dk okgu pyk ldrk gS] out dh dksbZ ck/;rk ugha gksrh gSA ;g lgh gS fd izn'kZ ,u02 esa fnukad 31-03-2008 ls 30-03-2011 dk dksbZ i`"Bkadu ugha gSA ;g dguk lgh gS fd izn'kZ ,u,&01 esa fnukad 31-03-2008 ls 30-03-2011 rd dk uohuhdj.k dk i`"Bkadu fd;k gqvk gSA og lgh gS fd izn'kZ 01 o 02 esjs gLrk{kjksa ls tkjh fd;k gqvk gS vkSj nksuksa nLrkost ,d gh fnuakd 09-04-2015 dks tkjh fd;s gq, gSA ;g lgh gS fd eSa foHkkx dk jftLVj lkFk ysdj ugha vk;k gwaA gekjs foHkkx ds dEI;wVj esa fjdkM+Z jgrk gSA ;g dguk lgh gS fd ge tks dEI;wVj esa fjdkMZ+ j[krs gS mldk bUnzkt jftLVj esa ugha fd;k tkrk gSA ;g dguk xyr gS fd eSa fjdkM+Z ds fo:) c;ku ns jgk gksA^^ (emphasis supplied) 19. The statement in cross-examination is in consonance with the provisions of the Act, whereas, the statement in chief and the certificate (Exhibit-NA/1) issued by him is apparently contrary to the provisions of the Act. 20. The statement in cross-examination is in consonance with the provisions of the Act, whereas, the statement in chief and the certificate (Exhibit-NA/1) issued by him is apparently contrary to the provisions of the Act. 20. In view of the above facts, wherein, the licence of the driver clearly indicates that his licence has been renewed for the period 31.03.2008 to 30.03.2011 'to drive transport vehicle' and the accident in question has occurred on 06.11.2010, it cannot be said that the driver was not in possession of a valid driving licence to drive the insured vehicle. 21. In view thereof, it cannot be said that there was violation of any policy condition as alleged by the appellant Insurance Company and it cannot seek exoneration from its liability to pay compensation on the said ground. No other point was argued by either of the sides. 22. In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the appeals and the same are, therefore, dismissed.