JUDGMENT : SUDESH BANSAL, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by appellant National Insurance Company against the judgment and award dated 16-12-2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Ajmer (hereafter ‘the Tribunal’) in Case No. 683/2009, whereby an award of Rs. 5,08,000/- has been passed in favour of the claimants. 2. Notices were issued on 28-3-2011, however, respondents have not been served so far. 3. Since the appeal is pending since 2011, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for appellant Insurance Company, appeal has been heard on merits. 4. Facts of the case are that on filing claim petition by claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereafter ‘the Act of 1988’) the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 5,08,000/- with interest in favour of the claimants and appellant Insurance Company was held liable to pay compensation with whom the tractor in question was insured. The claim petition was filed in relation to an accident occurred on 16-11-2009 when tractor RJ-01-R-4901 hit the motor cycle due to which Surendra Singh died. The tractor in question was insured with appellant Insurance Company. The Tribunal considering the evidence oral and documentary led before came to conclusion in favour of claimants and awarded compensation as above. 5. Counsel for appellant Insurance Company has raised two arguments first, the driver of tractor was having licence to drive light motor vehicle, which cannot be treated as valid for tractor, second, that the vehicle was registered in the name in whose name insurance policy was not made. 6. Counsel for appellant has raised an argument that the driver of the insured tractor was not having a valid licence to driver the tractor as his licence authorises him to driver only light motor vehicle, which does not have any endorsement to drive the tractor. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, AIR 2017 SC 3668 has held that “light motor vehicle” would include a transport vehicle as per the weight prescribed in Sections 2(21) read with 2(15) and 2(48). A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 Kgs. would be light motor vehicle and also motor car or tractor or a road roller “un-laden weight” of which does not exceed 7500 kg. A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 Kgs. would be light motor vehicle and also motor car or tractor or a road roller “un-laden weight” of which does not exceed 7500 kg. In the present case the tractor was un-laden and its weight does not exceed 7500 kg, and as such the driver, who was holding a valid licence to drive light motor vehicle, may not be treated as invalid to drive the tractor. Accordingly, the first argument is devoid of merit. 7. Counsel for appellant has further argued that the tractor was registered in the name of Chhagan Lal, whereas it had been transferred to one Kishan Lal, the insurance policy lies in the name of Chhagan Lal, with whom there was not contract of insurance. As far as this argument is concerned, it is not in dispute that deceased Surendra Singh falls within definition of “third party.” As per judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in G. Govindan vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (1999) 3 SCC 754 the insurer who issued policy would be liable to pay compensation to “third party.” It is not dispute that the insurance policy covers the risk of “third party.” Accordingly, this argument also does not have any substance. 8. No other argument has been raised by counsel for appellant Insurance Company. 9. Otherwise also, this court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned award. Nothing erroneous, perverse or illegal can be attributed to impugned award. The impugned award is a well considered one and requires no interference by this court. 10. Accordingly, the appeal filed by appellant Insurance Company is dismissed. 11. A perusal of record reveals that on 28.3.2011 Insurance Company was directed to deposit entire compensation amount before the Tribunal, out of which 50% amount of compensation was to be disbursed to claimants and remaining 50% amount was to be kept in FDR. Amount of compensation be disbursed to claimants. 12. Stay application and other applications, if pending, are also disposed of accordingly. There is no order as to costs.