Judgment Sanjeev Kumar, J.— MA 06/2009 1. This is an appeal by the National Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘insurer’) against the award dated 29.09.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in file No.487-C/Claim titled ‘Thoru Ram and another vs. National Insurance Company Ltd and ors’, whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.4,11,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum to respondent Nos. 1 to 2 [‘claimants’] from the date of filing of petition till final payment is made. 2. Briefly stated the facts, relevant to the disposal of this appeal, are that on 16.07.2002 at Railway Morh, Vijaypur, when the deceased was standing on the road, a Bus bearing registration No. JK02L-3851 [‘offending vehicle’] which was coming from Samba being driven rashly and negligently by its driver hit the deceased, as a result whereof, the deceased fell down on the ground and while being shifted to the hospital, succumbed to his injuries. The claimants filed a claim petition before the Tribunal for payment of compensation on account of death of the deceased. 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 an accident occurred on 16.07.2002 at Vijaypur due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing registration no. JK02L-3851 in the hands of its driver in which deceased Bittu sustained fatal injuries ? OPP (ii) If issue No. Is proved in affirmative, whether petitioners are entitled to compensation; if so to what amount and from whom ? OPP (iii) Whether deriver of offending vehicle at the time of accident was not holding a valid and effective driving licence ? OPR-1 (iv) Whether deceased has contributed negligence in causing the accident; if so how ? OPR-1 (v) Relief. OP Parties. 4. On the basis of evidence on record, the Tribunal held the insurer liable to pay compensation to the third party in the first instance with liberty to recover such sum from the owner of the offending vehicle. 5. OPR-1 (iv) Whether deceased has contributed negligence in causing the accident; if so how ? OPR-1 (v) Relief. OP Parties. 4. On the basis of evidence on record, the Tribunal held the insurer liable to pay compensation to the third party in the first instance with liberty to recover such sum from the owner of the offending vehicle. 5. Though several grounds have been raised in this appeal to challenge the impugned award, however, during the course of hearing, learned counsel for the insurer has restricted his challenge to the ground that the insurer cannot be saddled with the responsibility of indemnifying the claimants as the driver, at the time of accident, was not possessing a valid and effective driving licence and, therefore, the vehicle in question was being driven in contravention to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 6. It is submitted that since it was proved before the Tribunal that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence, the insurer should have been fully exonerated. However, the Tribunal, instead of exonerating the insurer, directed it to pay the awarded amount to the claimants with right to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. 7. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 8. It is seen that the Tribunal had framed a specific issue; whether the driver of the offending vehicle, at the time of accident, was not holding a valid and effective driving licence ? OPR-1 and that with a view to discharge the burden of proof of the said issue, the insurer examined one Jagdish Raj, clerk of RTO office Jammu as its sole witness. The witness, in his deposition, stated that the copy of licence annexed with the file was renewed up to 24.02.2003. In his cross-examination, he stated that the licence was issued by the RTO. On the other hand, the owner of the vehicle, in his deposition, stated that Kamal Kumar was his driver. He had seen his driving licence which bore the endorsement of HGV. 9. As is apparent from the statements of official witness, namely Jagdish Raj and the owner, namely, Bharat Gandhi, the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a driving licence authorising him to drive only heavy goods vehicle and not heavy passenger vehicle. 10. He had seen his driving licence which bore the endorsement of HGV. 9. As is apparent from the statements of official witness, namely Jagdish Raj and the owner, namely, Bharat Gandhi, the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a driving licence authorising him to drive only heavy goods vehicle and not heavy passenger vehicle. 10. For resolving the controversy raised herein, it would be apt to refer to relevant provisions of sub-section (16) of Section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 which defines the ‘heavy goods vehicles’ and sub-section 17 of Section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 which defines the ‘heavy passenger motor vehicle’. 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 omni-bus the gross vehicle weight of any of which, or a motor car the unladen weight of which, exceeds 12,000 kilograms;” 11. 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;” 12. Section 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 as it was in force before 14th November, 1994 provided 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 it stood prior to amendment was 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 it stood prior to amendment was 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. 13. By the amendment of 1994, which came into force on 2nd Nov., 1994, the Section 10 has been amended which now reads 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. 14. 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 gross weight of the vehicles is concerned and in addition to it, both the vehicles have now 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. 15. From 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. 16. 15. From 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. 16. 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. 17. 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 Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, AIR 2017 SC 3668 . 18. In view of the above, I find no merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. CONC 04/2009 For the reasons stated in the application, it is allowed. Consequently, delay of six days in filing the appeal stands condoned. MA 12/2009 This appeal has been filed by the owner of the offending vehicle i.e insured solely on the ground that the finding of the tribunal with regard to fastening of liability of compensation upon him is not correct and the award is required to be satisfied by the insurer only. In view of dismissal of appeal filed by the insurer, the appeal filed by the owner stands allowed. The award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the insurer is liable to indemnify the insured and is not entitled to recover the amount of compensation paid to the claimants in terms of the award of the Tribunal. Registry shall release the amount in favour of the claimants in terms of the impugned award after proper identification. The award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the insurer is liable to indemnify the insured and is not entitled to recover the amount of compensation paid to the claimants in terms of the award of the Tribunal. Registry shall release the amount in favour of the claimants in terms of the impugned award after proper identification. It is made clear that the amount, if any, deposited by the owner, shall be refunded to him by the insurer.