JUDGMENT This appeal by the National Insurance Company Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the insurer ) is directed against award dated 12.12.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kathua (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal ) in File No. 24/CP titled “Miss Lovely and ors vs. Mohinder Pal and ors”, whereby claimants have been held entitled to a compensation of Rs.7,33,000/- to be paid by the insurer along with interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of institution of the petition till its realization. 2. The factual matrix of the case are that on 11.04.2004, the deceased Smt. Naresh Kumari was travelling along with her husband in Bus No. JKQ 7589 (hereinafter referred to as the “offending vehicle”). The offending vehicle which was being driven by its driver i.e respondent No.3 herein rashly and negligently met with an accident and as a result whereof, Smt. Naresh Kumari died on the spot. The claimants i.e daughter, father-in- law and mother-in-law of deceased Smt. Naresh Kumari filed a claim petition before the Tribunal claiming a compensation of Rs. 17,32,000/- from the from the owner, driver and insurer of the offending vehicle. The claim petition was contested by the insurer only, whereas the owner and driver chose not to contest the same and were, accordingly, set ex parte by the Tribunal. 3. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues: (i) Whether because of rash and negligent driving of Bus No. JKQ 7589 by respondent No.1 who was under the employement of respondent No.2 the owner and the vehicle was insured with respondent No.3 an accident was caused on 11.04.2004 near Salwa (Tarmoni Mohra) Tehsil Basholi on a public place in consequence whereof Smt. Naresh Kumari w/o Kewal Krishan R/o Baee Tehsil Basholi District Kathua got killed ? (ii) On proof of issue No.1 to what amount of compensation the petitioners i.e minor daughter, father in law and mother in law of deceased are entitled and from whom ? OPP (iii) Whether respondent No.3 Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation for the reasons: (a) The driver was not holding a valid and effective DL at the relevant time (b) That the vehicle was being plied in violation of terms and conditions of Insurance Police OPR-3 (iv) Relief 4. OPP (iii) Whether respondent No.3 Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation for the reasons: (a) The driver was not holding a valid and effective DL at the relevant time (b) That the vehicle was being plied in violation of terms and conditions of Insurance Police OPR-3 (iv) Relief 4. By way of present appeal, the insurer has only disputed the validity of the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle. 5. Learned counsel for the insurer submits that the driver of the vehicle, at the time of accident, was driving the passenger service vehicle while he had no driving licence to drive the said vehicle. He further submits that, if the licence of the driver is taken to be valid then that licence authorized only to ply heavy goods vehicle. 6. Heard learned counsel for the insurer and perused the record. 7. The Tribunal had framed a specific issue; “whether the driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident”. 8. It is seen that, with a view to discharge the burden of proof of the said issue, the insurer examined one Alam Din, an employee of RTO Jammu as its witness, who, in his deposition, stated that he had brought the original record of Renewal No. 15467 dated 11.02.2004 and as per the record, licence No.25886/J was issued by the RTO Jammu in favour of Mohinder Pal i.e the driver of the offending vehicle. He further stated that as per the record, the driver of the offending vehicle was permitted to drive HGV Vehicles and that the driver could not have driven the heavy passenger vehicle for the reason the licence issued in his favour was not carrying PSV endorsement. 9. The aforesaid witness, however, in his cross-examination stated that there is no difference between the chasis of a bus or a truck. 10. As is apparent from the categoric statement of official witness, namely Alam Din, the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a driving licence authorising him to drive only heavy goods vehicle and not heavy passenger vehicle. 11. 10. As is apparent from the categoric statement of official witness, namely Alam Din, the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a driving licence authorising him to drive only heavy goods vehicle and not heavy passenger vehicle. 11. For resolving the controversy raised herein, it would be apt to refer to relevant provisions of sub-section (16) of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 which defines the “heavy goods vehicles” and sub-section 17 of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 which defines the “heavy passenger motor vehicle.” 12. For facility of reference, both are reproduced hereinbelow:- “(16) ‘heavy goods-vehicle’ means any goods carriage the gross vehicle weight of which, or a tractor or a road-roller the unladen weight of either of which, exceeds 12,000 kilograms; (17) ‘heavy passenger motor vehicle’ means any public service vehicle or private service vehicle or educational institution bus or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of any of which, or a motor car the unladen weight of which, exceeds 12,000 kilograms;” 13. It will be worthwhile to mention here that there is one more relevant category of the vehicle, which is defined in sub-section (47) of the Section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988, i.e. ‘transport vehicle’. The definition is reproduced hereinbelow:- “(47) ‘transport vehicle’ means a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle;” 14. Section 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 as it was in force before 14th November, 1994 provides that the driving licence shall expressly entitle the holder of the licence to drive the motor vehicle of one or more of the classes mentioned in the sub-clauses of Sub-section 2 of Section 10. Section 10 is as under:- “10. From and contents of licence to drive.-(1) Every learner’s licence and driving licence, except a driving licence issued Under Section 18, shall be in such form and shall contain such information as may be prescribed by the Central Government. Section 10 is as under:- “10. From and contents of licence to drive.-(1) Every learner’s licence and driving licence, except a driving licence issued Under Section 18, shall be in such form and shall contain such information as may be prescribed by the Central Government. (2) A learner’s licence or, as the case may be, driving licence shall also be expressed as entitling the holder to drive a motor vehicle of one or more of the following classes, namely: (a) motor cycle without gear; (b) motor cycle with gear; (c) invalid carriage; (d) light motor vehicle; (e) medium goods vehicle; (f) medium passenger motor vehicle; (g) heavy goods vehicle; (h) heavy passenger motor vehicle; (i) road-roller; (j) motor vehicle of a specified description. 15. By the amendment of 1994, which came into force on 2nd Nov., 1994, the Section 10 has been amended. The amended Section 10 is as under:- “10. From and contents of licence to drive.—( 1) Every learner’s licence and driving licence, except a driving licence issued Under Section 18, shall be in such form and shall contain such information as may be prescribed by the Central Government. (2) A learner’s licence or, as the case may be, driving licence shall also be expressed as entitling the holder to drive a motor vehicle of one or more of the following classes, namely: (a) motor cycle without gear; (b) motor cycle with gear; (c) invalid carriage; (d) light motor vehicle; [(e) transport vehicle;] (i) road-roller; (ii) motor vehicle of a specified description. 16. A bare perusal of the definitions of the ‘heavy goods vehicle’ and ‘heavy passenger motor vehicle’ reveals that there is virtually no distinction so far as the weight of the vehicles is concerned and in addition to it, both the vehicles have been included in the definition of transport vehicle. Though, there were two separate categories of the vehicles in the un-amended provisions of sub-section (2) of the Act of 1988, but, by amendment of 1994, this distinction has been taken away. 17. In view of the aforesaid, it transpires that a person holding driving licence to drive heavy goods vehicles can be treated competent to drive passenger service vehicle. Both are, in any case, “transport vehicle” and therefore belonging to one class. PSV endorsement or no PSV endorsement is immaterial. 18. 17. In view of the aforesaid, it transpires that a person holding driving licence to drive heavy goods vehicles can be treated competent to drive passenger service vehicle. Both are, in any case, “transport vehicle” and therefore belonging to one class. PSV endorsement or no PSV endorsement is immaterial. 18. Otherwise also, it is well settled that if a person is holding a licence authorizing him to drive heavy goods vehicle, he is competent to drive heavy passenger vehicle too and absence of specific endorsement on the licence is not a ground to absolve the insurance company of its liability to indemnify the insured. 19. Admittedly, the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a valid driving licence authorizing him to drive heavy goods vehicle and, therefore, in view of the settled legal position, he was competent to drive passenger service vehicle i.e Bus in the instant case. Absence of PSV endorsement on his licence will not, in any manner, affect the expertise and competence of the driver to drive the similar type of vehicle, though designed for carrying passengers instead of goods. Reference in this regard is invited to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kulwant Singh and others v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2015) 2 SCC 186 and Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, AIR 2017 SC 3668 . 20. No other ground is raised to challenge the impugned award. 21. In view of the aforesaid, this appeal is found to be without any merit. The same is, accordingly, dismissed. Registry shall release the amount in favour of the claimants in terms of the impugned award after proper identification.