JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act of 1988”) is directed against the award dated 19th of May, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned award”) passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Srinagar (for brevity “the Tribunal”) in a claim Petition titled ‘Noor Hussain Dar v. Mushtaq Ahmad Sofi & Ors.’, whereby the claim Petition stands allowed and the claimant/Respondent No.1 herein held entitled to the compensation worked out at Rs.1,90,000/-, inclusive of interim relief, if any, granted, along with interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of filing of the claim Petition, till final realization of the awarded amount. 2. The brief facts of the case, as come to the fore from the perusal of the pleadings on record, are that a claim Petition came to be filed before the learned Tribunal by the claimant/Respondent No.1 herein, asserting therein that on 24th of January, 2004, while he was going in his Auto Rickshaw (Load Carrier) bearing registration No. JK01G/3421 and when he reached Khona Khan, Dalgate, he was hit by a bus bearing registration No. JKE-2373 driven very rashly and negligently by the Respondent No.2/Appellant No.2 herein, causing grievous injuries to the claimant, including privation of his eye sight. On the basis of the aforesaid facts and with the support of the relevant documents, the claimant/Respondent No.1 herein prayed for grant of compensation in his favour to the tune of Rs.19, 28,000/-, along with interest. 3. It appears that the Appellants, Respondents 1 and 2 therein, filed the Objections before the Tribunal, wherein it was specifically pleaded that the Respondent No.1/Appellant No.1 herein, i.e., the owner of the vehicle, was under a bonafide belief that the driver of the vehicle viz. Respondent No.2/Appellant No.2 herein was holding a valid license and, as such, the owner of the vehicle engaged the said Respondent No.2 as driver of the vehicle. It was also stated that the driver of the vehicle was holding a valid and effective driving license and, by virtue of the said driving license, he was authorized to drive LMV, Medium Goods Vehicle and HMV, however, the license was without having ‘Public Service Vehicle’ (PSV) endorsement. It was also stated that the driver of the vehicle was holding a valid and effective driving license and, by virtue of the said driving license, he was authorized to drive LMV, Medium Goods Vehicle and HMV, however, the license was without having ‘Public Service Vehicle’ (PSV) endorsement. Subsequently, since the Respondents 1 and 2/Appellants herein did not turn up before the Tribunal and, as such, they, vide Order dated 21st of December, 2004, were proceeded ex-parte. 4. The Respondent-Insurance Company is also stated to have filed the Response before the Tribunal, wherein it was pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving license on the material date of accident and, thus, the insured/owner has committed breach of policy condition on the date of accident, which exonerates the Insurance Company from any liability. It was further stated that the claim Petition of the Petitioner was vague, misconceived and did not disclose any cause of action as against the Insurance Company and, therefore, same is liable to be dismissed. 5. After conclusion of the proceedings and hearing both the sides, the learned Tribunal, in terms of the impugned award dated 19th of May, 2012, allowed the claim Petition, thereby holding the claimant/Respondent No.1 herein entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,90,000/-, inclusive of interim relief, if any, granted, along with interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of filing of the claim Petition till final realization of the awarded amount. The Tribunal, however, directed the Insurance Company to deposit the awarded amount in the first instance with the Tribunal with a right to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle/Appellant No.1 herein. 6. The award impugned has been assailed by the Appellants- owner and driver of the offending vehicle, insofar as it directs the Insurance Company to recover the awarded amount from the owner of the vehicle/Appellant No.1 herein by filing simple recovery application. 6. The award impugned has been assailed by the Appellants- owner and driver of the offending vehicle, insofar as it directs the Insurance Company to recover the awarded amount from the owner of the vehicle/Appellant No.1 herein by filing simple recovery application. The main ground of challenge to the impugned award by the Appellants is that since the Insurance Company failed to prove that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving license by way of any evidence and, therefore, the Tribunal ought not to have granted any liberty to the Insurance Company to recover the compensation from the owner/Appellant No.1 herein, after initially paying the same to the claimant. It is also pleaded that the Insurance Company was under an obligation to prove that the owner of the vehicle has committed any wilful breach in terms of Section 149 of the Act of 1988, however, there is not even an iota of evidence on the file which would suggest that the owner has committed any wilful breach. It is further stated that the actual registered owner of the vehicle at the time of the accident was one Abdul Qayoom, who had sold the vehicle to Respondent No.1/Appellant No.1 herein prior to the date of accident, which fact was admitted by the Appellant No.1 before the Tribunal, but still the Tribunal, without any rhyme or reason, observed in the impugned award that the registered owner has not caused his appearance before it and that there is nothing in rebuttal to disbelieve the stand taken by the Insurance Company. 7. Learned Counsel for the Appellants has vehemently argued that the Tribunal had committed an error by holding that the Appellant-driver, who had ‘Heavy Goods Vehicle’ (HGV) driving license, was not competent to drive the offending vehicle which was a bus carrying passengers, as his license had no endorsement of ‘Public Service Vehicle’ (PSV). He has further argued that a Division Bench of this Court in case titled ‘National Insurance Company Limited v. Muhammad Sidiq Kuchey & Ors.’, reported as ‘2008 (I) SLJ 23’ has held that the ‘Public Service Vehicle’ (PSV) endorsement in accordance with the Jammu and Kashmir Motor Vehicle Rules is not necessary and that, if the driver is competent to drive a particular class of transport vehicle, he is competent to drive any other class of transport vehicle. 8. 8. Learned Counsel for the Respondent-Insurance Company, on the other hand, argued that the Tribunal has rightly decided the case holding that the Appellant-driver, in absence of the ‘Public Service Vehicle’ (PSV) endorsement on his driving license was not authorized to drive the offending vehicle-bus, which was a ‘Public Service Vehicle’ carrying passengers. He has relied upon a Judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court passed in ‘National Insurance Company Limited v. Bashir Ahmad Chopan & Ors.’, reported as ‘2012 (I) JKJ (HC) 222’, wherein the Court had held that a driver holding a driving license entitling him to drive a ‘Heavy Goods Vehicle’ (HGV) is not competent to drive a passenger carrying vehicle, unless there is a ‘Public Service Vehicle’ (PSV) endorsement thereon and, therefore, the contention raised in this appeal by the Appellants is misplaced and cannot be accepted. It was, accordingly, prayed that the appeal be dismissed, so as to uphold the impugned award which has been passed by a reasoned order. 9. The Tribunal, on a plea raised by the Respondent/insurer herein that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving license on the date of accident, framed, among other issues, issue No.4, which reads as follows: “Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving license on the date of accident, as such the respondent No.3 cannot be saddled with liability? OPR-3.” The onus to prove this issue had been placed on the Respondent-Company/insurer. The Respondent-Insurance Company, in support of its contention, examined two witnesses, namely, Susheel Kumar, a Record Keeper of the Driving Licenses from the Regional Transport Office and Harish Raina, Administrative Officer of the Insurance Company. 10. RW-Susheel Kumar deposed on the strength of the official record that the DL No. 2797/MVD/R was issued from the office of ARTO, Rajouri and the ‘Public Service Vehicle’ (PSV) endorsement was made on 15th of April, 2004 vide No. 71/PSV/HDV/RTO in favour of the license holder, Reyaz Ahmad, driver of the offending vehicle, which did not require any renewal. 10. RW-Susheel Kumar deposed on the strength of the official record that the DL No. 2797/MVD/R was issued from the office of ARTO, Rajouri and the ‘Public Service Vehicle’ (PSV) endorsement was made on 15th of April, 2004 vide No. 71/PSV/HDV/RTO in favour of the license holder, Reyaz Ahmad, driver of the offending vehicle, which did not require any renewal. He further deposed that the license had been issued vide No. 643/MVD and was valid from 12th of April, 2004 to 11th of April, 2007; that before endorsement, the driver was authorized to drive ‘Heavy Goods Vehicle’ (HGV), which as per records is true and correct and bears his initials and the signatures of RTO, Jadeshi Singh Manhas and that, as per ‘Public Service Vehicle’ (PSV) endorsement, the driver was competent to drive passenger vehicle of big and small size. RW-Harish Raina, an official of the Insurance Company, deposed that the respondent-driver was authorized to drive a ‘Heavy Goods Vehicle’ (HGV) as per DL No. 97/MVD/R which was valid from 16th of April, 2001 to 15th of April, 2004 and that the ‘Public Service Vehicle’ (PSV) endorsement on the license was made on 15th of April, 2004 vide endorsement No. 71/PSV/HDV, whereas the accident had taken place on 24th of January, 2004, as such the ‘Public Service Vehicle’ (PSV) endorsement on the license of the driver was made after the date of accident and he was not competent to drive the passenger vehicle, i.e., the bus in question. He further deposed that the driving license, being ineffective on the material date of occurrence, the Company, as insurer for contravention of the policy of insurance, was not bound to indemnify the owner of the vehicle. 11. It appears that the Appellant-owner of the offending vehicle, Mushtaq Ahmad Sofi, besides crossing the witness box himself, examined RW-Mukhtar Ahmad Bhat also. The Appellant-owner deposed that the Appellant-driver was known to him, who had been engaged by him as driver for his vehicle and that he had verified his driving license before authorizing him to drive the offending vehicle. He, on being cross-examined by the learned Counsel for the Respondent-Insurance Company, stated that the vehicle which the driver was plying was a bus and he had verified from the driver with regard to his license. He, on being cross-examined by the learned Counsel for the Respondent-Insurance Company, stated that the vehicle which the driver was plying was a bus and he had verified from the driver with regard to his license. RW-Mukhtar Ahmad Bhat, examined by the Appellant-owner of the offending vehicle, also stated that he had engaged the Appellant-driver earlier as he had a fleet of six vehicles and that the Appellant-driver used to ply his vehicle in the year 2004 and he had seen his driving license and there was no defect in his license. On being cross-examined by the learned Counsel for the Respondent-Insurance Company, he stated that the driver-Reyaz Ahmad used to ply the vehicle of the Appellant-owner. 12. The Tribunal, while deciding issue No.4, has recorded that the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, i.e., owner and driver/Appellants herein, had chosen not to contest the claim Petition as they were set ex parte and that as per record, the driving license of the driver of the offending vehicle was valid from 16th of April, 2001 and 15th of April, 2004, authorizing him to drive a ‘Heavy Goods Vehicle’ (HGV) vehicle and from 15th of April, 2004, vide endorsement No. 71/PSV/HGV, the license was valid to drive a passenger vehicle as well, whereas the accident had taken place on 24th of January, 2004, when the driver was not holding a valid license to drive the offending vehicle for want of ‘Public Service Vehicle’ (PSV) endorsement on his driving license. The Tribunal, while deciding this issue, observed that in absence of any rebuttal, it had no reason to disbelieve the Insurance Company that the driver of the offending vehicle on the particular date of occurrence was not holding effective driving license. It was further observed that in view of the evidence available on the file, the owner seems to have taken no care at all in ensuring whether the driver was holding any license, as such, the owner cannot escape from the liability, but has to face the wrath of the law and that the Insurance Company had succeeded to prove that there was breach of policy stipulations committed by the owner and the owner cannot be indemnified of his liability. As such, this issue was decided in favour of the Insurance Company. 13. As such, this issue was decided in favour of the Insurance Company. 13. As is borne out from the record of the Tribunal, pleadings of the parties and submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties, the offending vehicle was a passenger bus and its driver, on the date of the accident, had a ‘Heavy Goods Vehicle’ (HGV) driving license with no ‘Public Service Vehicle’ (PSV) endorsement. In this background, the rival submissions are to be appreciated as to whether the driver was authorized to drive the offending vehicle which was a passenger service vehicle in absence of the ‘Public Service Vehicle’ (PSV) endorsement of his driving license. The precise question to be dealt with, in this appeal, is whether a driver holding a license to drive a ‘Heavy Goods Vehicle’ (HGV) is competent to drive a passenger carrying vehicle. In order to find an answer to this question, the relevant provisions of the Act of 1988 are to be reverted to. 13.1. Section 2(14) of the Act of 1988 defines a ‘Goods Carriage’ as any motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use solely for the carriage of goods, or any motor vehicle not so constructed or adapted while being used for the carriage of goods. 13.2. Section 2(16) of the Act of 1988 defines ‘Heavy goods Carriage’ as 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. 13.3. Section 2 (35) of the Act of 1988 defines ‘Public Service Vehicle’ as any motor vehicle used or adapted to be used for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward, and includes a maxicab, a motorcab, contract carriage and stage carriage. 13.4. The ‘Transport Vehicle’ has been defined under Section 2(47) of the Act of 1988 as a Public Service Vehicle, a Goods Carriage, a bus of an Educational Institution or a private service vehicle. 14. What is deduced from the analysis of the definitions of the various classes of vehicles, given hereinbefore, is that every heavy goods vehicle is a ‘Goods Carriage’, whereas a ‘Transport Vehicle’ includes within its definition a ‘Public Service Vehicle’ as well as a ‘Goods Carriage’. 14. What is deduced from the analysis of the definitions of the various classes of vehicles, given hereinbefore, is that every heavy goods vehicle is a ‘Goods Carriage’, whereas a ‘Transport Vehicle’ includes within its definition a ‘Public Service Vehicle’ as well as a ‘Goods Carriage’. Thus, a passenger carrying vehicle, i.e., a ‘Public Service Vehicle’ as also a ‘Heavy Goods Vehicle’, i.e., a ‘Goods Carriage’ fall within the definition of a ‘Transport Vehicle’ as contained in Section 2(47) of the Act of 1988. 15. Section 10 (2) of the Act of 1988, after its amendment on 14th of November, 1994, provides the expression ‘Transport Vehicle’, which has replaced all types of commercial vehicles which includes goods vehicle as well as passenger carrying vehicles and, therefore, w.e.f. 14th of November, 1994, the driving licenses in respect of commercial vehicles are issued under the head ‘Transport Vehicle’ and no sub classification of these types of licenses is envisaged under Section 10 (2) of the Act of 1988, which provides for issuance of driving licenses for the following classes of vehicles: i. Motor Cycle without gear; ii. Motor Cycle with gear; iii. Invalid Carriage; iv. Light Motor Vehicle; v. Transport Vehicle; vi. Road-Roller; and vii. Motor Vehicle of a specified description. 16. The accident, which is the subject matter of the instant appeal, had taken place on 24th of January, 2004, much after the coming into effect of the aforesaid amendment, therefore, any person who was holding a driving license authorizing him to drive a particular type of commercial vehicle would automatically be competent to drive any other type of commercial vehicle, meaning thereby that a driver holding a driving license to drive a ‘Heavy Goods Vehicle’ (HGV) would be entitled to drive a passenger carrying vehicle. As already noticed, a ‘Transport Vehicle’ includes within its definition a ‘Public Service Vehicle’ as well as a ‘Goods Carriage’. The driving license that was held by the Appellant-driver, herein in the case in hand, was, as such, valid and effective one authorizing him to drive the offending vehicle as well. 17. As already noticed, a ‘Transport Vehicle’ includes within its definition a ‘Public Service Vehicle’ as well as a ‘Goods Carriage’. The driving license that was held by the Appellant-driver, herein in the case in hand, was, as such, valid and effective one authorizing him to drive the offending vehicle as well. 17. I am fortified to take this view having regard to the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in case titled ‘National Insurance Company Limited v. Mohammad Sidiq Kuchey & Ors.’, reported as ‘2008 (I) SLJ 23’, as relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Appellants that a driver is competent to drive a particular class of ‘Transport Vehicle’, if he is competent to drive any other class of ‘Transport Vehicle’ and that there was no need for any ‘Public Service Vehicle’ (PSV) endorsement in accordance with the Jammu and Kashmir Motor Vehicle Rules. Furthermore, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in a case titled ‘National Insurance Company Limited v. Jagjeet Singh & Ors.’, reported as ‘2023 Legal Eagle (J&K) 289’, has also taken the same view in an identical matter. 18. Having regard to the legal position as discussed hereinabove, while quoting the relevant provisions of the Act of 1988 pertaining to various class of vehicles and the requirement of the driving license, it is held that the Appellant-driver, while holding a ‘Heavy Goods Vehicle’ (HGV) license, was competent to drive the offending vehicle, which being a commercial vehicle was also of the same class as every ‘Heavy Goods Vehicle’ is a ‘Goods Carriage’, whereas, the ‘Transport Vehicle’ includes within its definition a ‘Public Service Vehicle’ as well as a ‘Goods Carriage’, besides a passenger carrying vehicle, i.e., a ‘Public Service Vehicle’ as also ‘Heavy Goods Vehicle’, i.e., a ‘Goods Carriage’ fall within the definition of a ‘Transport Vehicle’ as contained in Section 2 (47) of the Act of 1988. The Appellant-driver was, thus, holding a valid and effective driving license, thereby making him competent and authorizing him to drive the offending vehicle while holding his ‘Heavy Goods Vehicle’ (HGV) license without ‘Public Service Vehicle’ (PSV) endorsement thereto. 19. The Appellant-driver was, thus, holding a valid and effective driving license, thereby making him competent and authorizing him to drive the offending vehicle while holding his ‘Heavy Goods Vehicle’ (HGV) license without ‘Public Service Vehicle’ (PSV) endorsement thereto. 19. The Tribunal, for the aforesaid reasons, has fallen in error by holding that the Appellant-driver was not holding a valid and effective driving license so as to construe a breach of insurance contract between the Appellant-insured and the Respondent-insurer, so as to absolve the insurer from its liability to indemnify the insured. In that view of the matter, it is held that the driving license of the Appellant-driver was valid and effective at the time of accident of the offending vehicle and, therefore, there is no breach on the part of the Appellant-insurer so as to absolve the Respondent-Insurance Company of its liability to indemnify the insured. The impugned award so far as it relates to the liability of payment of compensation by the Appellants is, as such, modified by setting aside the liability of the Appellants and it is held that the Respondent-Insurance Company is liable to indemnify its liability to pay compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants. The award is, thus, required and liable to be modified to this extent. 20. For the foregoing reasons and observations made hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Appellants have made out a good case for interference in the impugned award passed by the Tribunal insofar as it directs for recovery of the awarded amount by the Insurance Company from the Appellant No.1 herein, being owner of the offending vehicle. Having said so, the instant appeal is allowed and the impugned award is modified by setting aside the portion of the award which grants recovery rights to the Respondent-Insurance Company. There shall be no order as to costs. 21. The statutory amount, if any, deposited by the Appellants in the Registry of this Court at the time of filing of this appeal is directed to be returned to the Appellants after proper identification. 22. This shall also dispose of any pending miscellaneous application, accordingly.