JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is filed by the insurance company challenging the judgment and award dated 15.10.2014 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and MACTVI (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short) at Shivamogga in MVC No.982/2012, whereby the Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.5,98,000/with interest @ 6% p.a. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 05.07.2012 at about 7.30 p.m., one Parashurama after completing his work, while returning to his house in his TVS XL Moped bearing registration No.KA14X4059, near Karthik Motors on N.T. Road, Shimoga, the tractor bearing registration No.KA18N3491 came from Thirthahalli side being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the said TVS Moped. Due to the impact, Parashurama sustained grievous head injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Mc.Gann Hospital, Shimoga and admitted as inpatient from 06.07.2012 to 01.08.2012. Again, on 05.08.2012 Parashurama was admitted to Mc.Gann Hospital, Shimoga and he got discharged on the same day. Later he died in his house on 07.08.2012. The claimants, who are wife and sons of deceased filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the MACT, Shivamogga in MVC No.982/2012. To establish their case, they have examined two witnesses as PW.1 and PW.2 and got marked 12 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12. On the other hand, respondent Insurance Company has examined one witness as RW.1 and got marked 08 documents as Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.8. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.5,98,000/with interest @ 6% p.a. Being aggrieved by the same, the insurance company has filed this appeal under Section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. 3. Sri. P.B. Raju, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company contended that the accident occurred on 05.07.2012. Immediately, Parashurama was admitted to the Hospital as inpatient from 06.07.2012 to 01.08.2012 and he was discharged on 05.08.2012. After discharge, he died in his house on 07.08.2012. Therefore, death of Parashurama is not due to the injuries caused in the accident. Secondly, he contended that driver of the offending vehicle was having LMV non-transport driving licence, but he was driving the transport vehicle. Thirdly, he contended that driver of the offending vehicle was possessing driving licence to drive tractor. But, he was driving the tractor trailer and the accident was caused by the tractor. Secondly, he contended that driver of the offending vehicle was having LMV non-transport driving licence, but he was driving the transport vehicle. Thirdly, he contended that driver of the offending vehicle was possessing driving licence to drive tractor. But, he was driving the tractor trailer and the accident was caused by the tractor. The Tribunal without considering this aspect of the matter has fastened the liability on the insurance company. Hence, he prays for allowing the appeal. 4. Respondents are served and unrepresented. 5. It is not in dispute that one Parashurama had sustained injuries in a road traffic accident occurred on 05.07.2012 due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor bearing registration No.KA18N3491. Immediately after the accident, he was admitted to the KMC Hospital, Manipal on 06.07.2012 and discharged on 01.08.2012. Again, he was admitted on 05.08.2012 and died in his house on 07.08.2012. It is very clear from the depositions of PW.1 and PW.2, Discharge Summaries at Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.8 and wound certificate at Ex.P.5 that Parashurama died due to the accident occurred on 05.07.2012 due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor bearing registration No.KA18N3491. Therefore, I do not find any error in the finding given by the Tribunal on this aspect. 6. In respect of driving licence is concerned, the officer of the insurance company has been examined as RW.1 and she has produced the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle at Ex.R.5. The Tribunal has rightly given the finding that the trailer is part of the tractor. It is used only when it is necessary to carry goods. The accident was caused by the tractor. As such, the contention of the insurance company cannot be accepted, since the trailer is part of the tractor. The Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd reported in AIR 2017 SC 3668 , has opined that licence to drive LMV non-transport vehicle includes licence to drive the transport vehicle. 7. In view of the above, I do not find any error in the findings given by the Tribunal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. The statutory deposit, if any deposited by the insurance company shall be transferred to the Tribunal.