JUDGMENT : K.R. Mohapatra, J. This appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') assailing the judgment and award dated 02.04.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge-cum-MACT, Bolangir (for short 'learned Tribunal') in M.A.C. Case No. 82/18 of 2006-09 awarding a compensation of Rs.1,84,500/- along with interest @ 6% per annum in favour of the claimants-respondent nos.1 to 4 with certain conditions. 2. Heard Mr.Das, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and Mr. Pati, learned counsel for the claimants-Respondent Nos.1 to 4. 3. The owner of the vehicle involved in the accident, namely, respondent no.5 has not appeared. Although the driver of the vehicle, namely, respondent No.6 is represented, but no one appears for him at the time of call. 4. Short narration of facts necessary for proper adjudication of the case are that the Claimant-respondent Nos.1 to 4 who are widow and sons of one Bhagaban Karmi (for short, 'the deceased'), filed Claim Petition under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation of Rs.4.50 lakh contending that on the ill-fated day, i.e., on 28.03.2004, when the deceased was travelling as a Coolie sitting on the trolley bearing registration No.OR-15-C-2096 fitted with Tractor bearing registration No.OR-15-C-2095 (for short 'the tractor'), it met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver respondent no.6, as a result of which the deceased sustained severe bleeding injuries and succumbed to the same. Respondent No.5 was the registered owner of the said Tractor and Trolley. The Tractor and Trolley were insured with the appellant-Insurance Company, which was valid on the date of accident. 5. The owner of the tractor-respondent No.5 filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition. Although he admitted the accident, but denied the allegation that respondent no.6 was driving the Tractor in a rash and negligent manner. However, he contended that the tractor was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company covering the date of the accident. As such, compensation, if any, should be indemnified by the Insurance Company. 6. The appellant-Insurance Company filed its written statement refuting allegations made in the claim petition. However, he contended that the tractor was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company covering the date of the accident. As such, compensation, if any, should be indemnified by the Insurance Company. 6. The appellant-Insurance Company filed its written statement refuting allegations made in the claim petition. Although it was admitted that the tractor was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company, but it was specifically contended that the driver-respondent No.6 was not authorized to drive the said vehicle, i.e., tractor fitted with trolley, as the driver held a driving license authorizing him to drive a 'light motor vehicle' and 'Tractor' only. As such, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. 7. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submits that learned Tribunal while saddling the liability on the Insurance Company has not granted the right of recovery although a specific plea was taken by the Insurance Company that there was violation of the policy condition. The driver of the Tractor was authorized to drive light motor vehicle and Tractor only, but not a Tractor fitted with trolley, which is a goods carriage. Admittedly, the deceased was travelling in the tractor as a collie sitting on the trolley of the tractor loaded with sand. Thus, according to him, even if Section 147 of the Act makes it clear that the risk of the collie in a goods carriage is covered under the policy and no extra premium is required to be paid for him, but in view of the fact that the respondent No.6 was not authorized to drive the Tractor fitted with trolley, there is breach of policy condition and the Insurance Company is not required to indemnify the owner of the tractor. He also draws attention of this Court to the relevant portion of paragraph-5 of the written statement filed by the Insurance Company, which reads as under: "Hence, the opposite party No.1 cannot be held liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle. The driving license bearing No.401/92 issued by R.T.A., Bolangir in favour of Santosh Kumar Das, was authorized to drive light motor vehicle and tractor only. The driving license bearing No.401/92 issued by R.T.A., Bolangir in favour of Santosh Kumar Das, was authorized to drive light motor vehicle and tractor only. But the insurance policy was issued in favour of a goods carrying commercial vehicle, as such the driving license issued in favour of the driver was not a valid and effective one." As such, learned Tribunal has committed error in saddling the liability on the Insurance Company without granting a right of recovery of compensation amount from the owner of the Tractor. 8. Mr. Pati, learned counsel for the claimants-respondent nos.1 to 4, however, supported the impugned judgment and award and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. He also prayed for a direction for early disbursal of compensation awarded. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. Admittedly, the driver-respondent No.6 was authorized to drive light motor vehicles and tractor. A light motor vehicle is defined under Section 2(21) of the Act, reads as follows:- "2(21) "light motor vehicle" means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road-roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed 7,500 kilograms." Goods Carriage is defined under Section 2(14) of the Act, which as follows:- "2(14) "goods carriage" means any motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use solely for the carriage of goods, or any motor vehicle not so constructed or adapted when used for the carriage of goods;" Thus, the question arises, whether the respondent No.6 who was holding a license to drive 'light motor vehicle' and 'tractor' is legally authorized to drive a tractor fitted with a trolley? 10. This Court, relying upon case laws settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in (Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. -v- Angad Kol and others, (2009) 2 OrissaLR 442 (SC)), (Ashok -v- Oriental Insurance Company Co. Ltd., (1999) AIR SC 3181), (Nagashetty -v- United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others, (2001) AIR SC 3356), (National Insurance Co. Ltd. -v- Annappa Irappa Nesaria, (2008) AIR SC 1418) came to hold in the case of M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited, represented through Divisional Manager Vs. Ltd., (1999) AIR SC 3181), (Nagashetty -v- United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others, (2001) AIR SC 3356), (National Insurance Co. Ltd. -v- Annappa Irappa Nesaria, (2008) AIR SC 1418) came to hold in the case of M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited, represented through Divisional Manager Vs. Prakash Chandra Patra and another, (2010) 2 OrissaLR 401, as under:- "On a reading of the aforesaid provisions clearly goes to show that the definition of a 'light motor vehicle', as given in Section 2(21) of the M.V. Act would also include a 'transport vehicle', whose gross vehicle weight does not exceed 7500 Kgs. It can apply only to a 'light goods vehicle' or a 'light transport vehicle'. A 'light goods vehicle' having not been defined in the M.V. Act, the definition of 'light motor vehicle' clearly indicates that it takes within its umbrage, both a transport vehicle and a non-transport vehicle, whose gross vehicle weight does not exceed 7500 Kgs. Therefore a 'light mother vehicle' can also mean a light passenger carriage vehicle and light goods carriage vehicle." (emphasis supplied) It appears from the materials available on record that respondent no.6 was authorized to drive a Light Motor Vehicle and Tractor. A 'tractor' has been defined under Section 2(44) of the Act, which reads as follows: "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 road-roller." 11. Thus, a Tractor by itself is not designed to carry any load. It has to be fitted with or fastened with equipment like trolley to carry a load. A trolley may be a 'trailer" as defined under section 2(46) of the Act as intended to be drawn by a motor vehicle including a tractor. The issue as to whether a person authorized to drive Tractor can drive Tractor fitted or fastened with a trolley, has been answered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nagashetty -v- Untied India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others, (2001) 8 SCC 56 , which reads as follows: "10. We are unable to accept the submissions of Mr. S.C. Sharda. It is an admitted fact that the driver had a valid and effective licence to drive a tractor. Undoubtedly under Section 10 a licence is granted to drive specific categories of motor vehicles. Ltd. and others, (2001) 8 SCC 56 , which reads as follows: "10. We are unable to accept the submissions of Mr. S.C. Sharda. It is an admitted fact that the driver had a valid and effective licence to drive a tractor. Undoubtedly under Section 10 a licence is granted to drive specific categories of motor vehicles. The question is whether merely because a trailer was attached to the tractor and the tractor was used for carrying goods, the licence to drive a tractor becomes ineffective. If the argument of Mr. S.C. Sharda is to be accepted then every time an owner of a private car, who has a licence to drive a light motor vehicle, attaches a roof carrier to his car or a trailer to his car and carries goods thereon, the light motor vehicle would become a transport vehicle and the owner would be deemed to have no licence to drive that vehicle. It would lead to absurd results. Merely because a trailer is added either to a tractor or to a motor vehicle by itself does not make that tractor or motor vehicle a transport vehicle. The tractor or motor vehicle remains a tractor or motor vehicle. If a person has a valid driving licence to drive a tractor or a motor vehicle he continues to have a valid licence to drive that tractor or motor vehicle even if a trailer is attached to it and some goods are carried in it. In other words a person having a valid driving licence to drive a particular category of vehicle does not become disabled to drive that vehicle merely because a trailer is added to that vehicle." This Court in the case of Untied India Insurance Co. Ltd. v Ghanashyam Majhi and others, 2005 3 TAC 894 (Ori) relying upon Nagashetty (supra) has taken a similar view. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan v Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2017) 14 SCC 663 held as follows: "30. The state Government has to maintain a register of motor vehicles under Rule 75 as provided in Form 41 which includes gross vehicle weight, unladen weight, etc. The Central Government has the power to frame rules under Section 27, inter alia, regarding minimum qualification, forms, and contents of the licences, etc. The state Government has to maintain a register of motor vehicles under Rule 75 as provided in Form 41 which includes gross vehicle weight, unladen weight, etc. The Central Government has the power to frame rules under Section 27, inter alia, regarding minimum qualification, forms, and contents of the licences, etc. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the definition of "light motor vehicle" under Section 2(21) of the Act includes transport vehicle of the class and weight defined therein. The transport vehicle or omnibus would be light motor vehicle, gross vehicle weight of which, and also a motor car or tractor or roadroller, unladen weight of which, does not exceed 7500 kg, and can be driven by holder of licence to drive light motor vehicle and no separate endorsement is required to drive such transport vehicle" It is not the case of the appellant-Insurance Company that the tractor in question fitted with trolley had an unladen weight more than 7500 Kilograms. There is also no material on record to that effect. In the case of Sant Lal -v- Rajesh and others, (2017) 8 SCC 590 , following the ratio in Mukund Dewangan (supra), it is held as follows: "2. This Court has considered the question whether the holder of licence for light motor vehicle can drive tractor attached to the trolley carrying goods and also whether separate endorsement is required authorizing him to drive such a transport vehicle? 3. We have answered the question that the driver having licence to drive light motor vehicle can drive such a transport vehicle of LMV class and there is no necessity to obtain separate endorsement, since tractor attached with the trolley was transport vehicle of the category of light motor vehicle. Hence, there was no breach of the conditions of the policy. 4. Accordingly, in view of the answer given to reference by the three-Judge Bench of this Court in Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., these appeals have to be allowed and are hereby allowed. The right given to the insurer to recover amount from the owner is hereby set aside. The liability is held to be joint and several of the owner, driver and insurer. Ltd., these appeals have to be allowed and are hereby allowed. The right given to the insurer to recover amount from the owner is hereby set aside. The liability is held to be joint and several of the owner, driver and insurer. No costs." Thus, it can be safely concluded that respondent no.6, who was holding a driving license to drive a light motor vehicle and tractor was also authorized to drive tractor fitted/fastened with trolley on the date of accident. 12. Further, proviso to Section 147 of the Act reads as follows:- "147. Requirements of policies and limits of liability:- xx xx xx xx xx Provided that a policy shall not be required: (i) to cover liability in respect of the death, arising out of and in the course of this employment, of the employee of a person insured by the policy or in respect of bodily injury sustained by such an employee arising out of and in the course of his employment other than a liability arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923), in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, any such employee- (a) engaged in driving the vehicle, or (b) if it is a public service vehicle, engaged as a conductor of the vehicle or in examining tickets on the vehicle; or (c) if it is a goods carriage, being carried in the vehicle, or (ii) to cover any contractual liability." Thus, the risk of the deceased, who was under the employment of the owner of the vehicle as a Coolie, is covered under the policy. As such, the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner of the Tractor-respondent no.5. 13. Admittedly, respondent No.6 was authorized to drive Tractor fastened with trolley and both tractor was validly insured with the appellant-Insurance Company covering the date of the accident. As such, learned Tribunal has committed no error in fastening the liability of appellant-Insurance Company to indemnify the owner of the Tractor to pay compensation awarded in favour of claimants-respondent Nos.1 to 4. 14. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to accept the contention raised by Mr. Das, learned counsel for the Insurance Company. Hence, the appeal being devoid of any merit deserves to be dismissed and the same is dismissed. 15. 14. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to accept the contention raised by Mr. Das, learned counsel for the Insurance Company. Hence, the appeal being devoid of any merit deserves to be dismissed and the same is dismissed. 15. On deposit of the entire compensation amount along with interest before learned Tribunal as awarded, within a period of six weeks hence, the statutory deposit made before this Court along with interest accrued thereon shall be refunded to the appellant-Insurance Company on furnishing a certificate/proof of deposit of the awarded amount along with interest before learned Tribunal. Needless to say that the awarded amount along with interest to be deposited by the appellant-Insurance Company shall be released in favour of the claimants-respondent nos.1 to 4 on proper identification.