(1.) This is an appeal by the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. They have challenged the award dated 16.02.2012 vide which respondent no.1 Jaswant Singh has been held as not proved to be having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident under issue no.6. In view of the finding on issue no.6, learned Tribunal has exonerated the insurance company i.e. respondent no.2 and has held respondents no. 1 and 3 (appellants before this court) to be jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimants.
(2.) The short point involved in this appeal is as to whether Jaswant Singh, who was holding a driving licence authorizing him to drive a light motor vehicle was entitled to drive a transport vehicle as Mohindra Pick Up No. PB-05H- 9590 is. In view of the fact that this short question is involved in this appeal, the facts of the matter are not required to be noticed here.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that a transport vehicle is included in the definition of 'light motor vehicle' as it appears in section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 (for short the Act). According to him, light motor vehicle means a transport vehicle as per the definition and, therefore, appellant no.1 Jaswant Singh, who was holding a licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle was authorized to drive a transport vehicle. He has supported his submission with a decision of this court in Oriental Insurance Company v. Mukesh, 2011 2 RCR(Civ) 508. In the reported case, the driver was authorized to drive light motor vehicle. He was, however driving a passenger vehicle, on account of the driving of which, death was caused. Insurance company claimed itself to be not liable to pay compensation. It has been held that light motor vehicle covers both light passenger carriage vehicle and light goods carriage vehicle and, therefore, driver holding a valid driving licence for light motor vehicle was authorized to drive a light goods vehicle as well.