JUDGMENT : SUSHIL KUKREJA, J. The instant appeal has been maintained by appellant, i.e., The New India Assurance Company Limited, who was respondent No. 3 before the learned Tribunal below (hereinafter referred to as “the appellant/Insurance Company”) under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘The Act’) against impugned award, dated 17.02.2014, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Solan, H.P., (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tribunal”), whereby the claim petition filed by the petitioners-claimants (respondents No. 1 & 2 herein) under Section 166 of the Act, was allowed and they were held entitled for compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the realization of the amount from respondent No. 3-Insurance Company, being insurer. 2. The facts giving rise to the instant appeal are that the petitioners/claimants, being parents of Balwant alias Babloo (deceased) filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal below under Section 166 of the Act, wherein they averred that their son Balwant was playing with other children near patrol pump, Sun City Road, Baddi on 17.02.2010. Around 05:00 p.m., vehicle bearing registration No. HP-02-7081 (offending vehicle) came from Baddi barrier side and crushed the deceased. The offending vehicle at that time was being driven by respondent No. 1-Vishal in a rash and negligent manner and was on high speed. The deceased was crushed under the tyres of the offending vehicle and while he was being taken to Chandigarh, he succumbed to his injuries. As per the petitioners, due to the death of their son, they suffered mental agony and stress and accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1. The petitioners sought compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- from the respondents, i.e., respondent No. 1-Vishal (driver), respondent No. 2 (owner of the offending vehicle) and respondent No. 3 (insurer). 3. Respondents No. 1 and 2 filed their joint reply, wherein they averred that no accident was committed by vehicle, bearing registration No. HP-02-7081, therefore, there was no question of rash and negligent driving of the above vehicle by respondent No. 1. The replying respondent further averred that their vehicle was fully insured with respondent No. 3 and in case compensation was payable on account of the death of the deceased, then respondent No. 3-Insurance Company was liable to pay the same, being insurer. 4. The replying respondent further averred that their vehicle was fully insured with respondent No. 3 and in case compensation was payable on account of the death of the deceased, then respondent No. 3-Insurance Company was liable to pay the same, being insurer. 4. Respondent No. 3-Insurance Company (appellant herein), in its separate reply, admitted that offending vehicle was insured with it and denied that any information qua the accident was given to it by respondents No. 1 and 2. As per the replying respondent, there was possibility of respondents No. 1 and 2 conniving with the petitioners in order to fasten liability on it. It was averred that the offending vehicle was not duly registered and it was being plied without any route permit, thus there was breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The driving of the offending vehicle was not having any valid and effective driving licnece to drive the same. Lastly, the replying respondent averred that the amount of compensation claimed by the petitioners was highly exaggerated without any legal basis and prayer for dismissal of the claim petition was made. 5. On 16.08.2012 the learned Tribunal below had framed the following issues for consideration and adjudication: “1. Whether the accident was result of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle in question by respondent No. 1, and the deceased died in the said accident? OPP 2. If issue No. 1, is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle in question was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? If so, its effect? OPR3 4. Whether the offending vehicle in question did not have any valid registration certificate and route permit at the time of accident? OPR3 5. Whether the vehicle in question was driven in breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy? If so, its effect? OPR3 6. Relief.” 6. If so, its effect? OPR3 4. Whether the offending vehicle in question did not have any valid registration certificate and route permit at the time of accident? OPR3 5. Whether the vehicle in question was driven in breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy? If so, its effect? OPR3 6. Relief.” 6. After the parties led their evidence and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the claim petition was allowed by the learned Tribunal below and the petitioners/claimants were held entitled for compensation in the sum of Rs.6,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the realization of the amount from respondent No. 3-Insurance Company (appellant herein), being insurer of the offending vehicle. 7. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant- Insurance Company preferred the instant appeal against the impugned award dated 17.02.2014, with prayer to allow the instant appeal by quashing and setting-aside the impugned award. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned vice counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 and carefully examined the entire records. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Tribunal below had fallen into a grave error while returning findings on issue No. 3 that respondent No. 1, i.e., driver of the offending vehicle was having a valid and effective driving licnece to drive the offending vehicle at the time of the accident as it has been established on record that the driving licence of the driver was issued to drive Light/Medium Transport Vehicle, whereas the licence should have been endorsed to drive Heavy Passenger Motor vehicle. He further contended that the learned Tribunal below had wrongly fastened the liability on the appellant-Insurance Company and it be exonerated from paying the amount of compensation to the petitioners. 10. Conversely, the learned vice counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 (claimants) supported the impugned award and contended that the impugned award is the result of proper appreciation of both facts and law and the appeal, being devoid of merits, be dismissed. 11. Now the question which arises for consideration before this Court is whether the driver of the offending vehicle, at the time of the accident, was having a valid and effective driving licence or not. The perusal of the Registration Certificate, Ex. 11. Now the question which arises for consideration before this Court is whether the driver of the offending vehicle, at the time of the accident, was having a valid and effective driving licence or not. The perusal of the Registration Certificate, Ex. R1, of the vehicle in question demonstrates that the gross weight of the offending vehicle was 16200 kgs and as per Section 2 (17) of the Act, it falls under the category of heavy passenger motor vehicle. At this stage, for the sake of ready reference, (17) of the Act is reproduced hereunder: “2. Definitions.—In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,— … … … … … … … (17) “heavy passenger motor vehicle” means any public service vehicle or private service vehicle or educational institution bus or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of any of which, or a motor car the unladen weight of which, exceeds 12,000 kilograms;” 12. RW-1-Shri Pramod Kumar had produced on record Driving Licence of the driver, which is Ex.RW-1/A, perusal whereof shows that it was valid for driving Transport Vehicle upto 03.03.2012 and the class of the vehicle was mentioned as Light Motor Vehicle/MCW/Transport Vehicle. RW-2 Shri Pankaj Kumar, the then Assistant Manager, New India Assurance Company Divisional Office, Shimla, tendered in evidence his affidavit, Ex. RW-2/A, and had deposed that as per the claim petition, Vishal (driver of the offending vehicle) was driving the bus at the time of the accident and he was holding driving licence No. DLR/CHO 2/260627/09. He further deposed that on the instructions of Insurance Company, Shri P.N. Verma, Investigator verified the driving licence from RLA, Chandigarh, and obtained verification report, dated 30.08.2010, which was enclosed with his affidavit. He also deposed that as per the verification report, Shri Vishal Kumar was not entitled to drive the insured bus as the driving licence authorized him to drive Light Motor Vehicle/MCW/Transport Vehicle whereas the insured bus was heavy passenger motor vehicle. 13. The next question which arises for consideration before this Court is as to whether the driver, who was having the driving licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle/MCW/Transport Vehicle could have driven the Heavy Passenger Motor Vehicle. In Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Limited vs. Rambha Devi & others, (2025) 3 SCC 95 , it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as under: “180. In Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Limited vs. Rambha Devi & others, (2025) 3 SCC 95 , it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as under: “180. Now harking back to the primary issue and noticing that the core driving skills (as enunciated in the earlier paragraphs), expected to be mastered by all drivers are universal-regardless of whether the vehicle falls into “Transport” or “Non-Transport” category, it is the considered opinion of this Court that if the gross vehicle weight is within 7500 kg-the quintessential common man’s driver Sri, with LMV licence, can also drive a “transport vehicle”. We are able to reach such a conclusion as none of the parties in this case has produced any empirical data to demonstrate that the LMV driving licence-holder, driving a “transport vehicle”, is a significant cause for road accidents in India. The additional eligibility criteria as specified in the MV Act and the MV Rules as discussed in this judgment will apply only to such vehicle (“medium goods vehicle”, “medium passenger vehicle”, “heavy goods vehicle” and “heavy passenger vehicle”), whose gross weight exceeds 7500 kg. Our present interpretation on how the licensing regime is to operate for drivers under the statutory scheme is unlikely to compromise the road safety concerns. This will also effectively address the livelihood issues for drivers operating transport vehicles (who clock maximum hours behind the wheels), in legally operating “transport vehicles” (below 7500 kgs), with their LMV driving licence. Perforce Sri must drive responsibly and should have no occasion to be called either a maniac or an idiot (as mentioned in the first paragraph), while he is behind the wheels. Such harmonious interpretation will substantially address the vexed question of law before this Court. … … … … … … … … 181.1 A driver holding a licence for light motor vehicle (LMV) class, under Section 10(2)(d) for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight under 7500 kg, is permitted to operate a “transport vehicle” without needing additional authorization under Section 10(2)(e) of the MV Act specifically for the “transport vehicle” class. For licensing purposes, LMVs and transport vehicles are not entirely separate classes. An overlap exists between the two. The special eligibility requirements will however continue to apply for, inter alia, e-carts, e-rickshaws, and vehicles carrying hazardous goods. ... For licensing purposes, LMVs and transport vehicles are not entirely separate classes. An overlap exists between the two. The special eligibility requirements will however continue to apply for, inter alia, e-carts, e-rickshaws, and vehicles carrying hazardous goods. ... … … … … … … … 181.3 The additional eligibility criteria specified in the MV Act and the MV Rules generally for driving “transport vehicles” would apply only to those intending to operate vehicles with gross vehicle weight exceeding 7500 kg i.e. “medium goods vehicle”, “medium passenger vehicle”, “heavy goods vehicle” and “heavy passenger vehicle”. 14. Thus, as per the principle enunciated in the case cited supra, a driver holding a licence for light motor vehicle (LMV) with a gross vehicle weight under 7500 kg, is permitted to operate a “transport vehicle” without needing additional authorization, however, additional eligibility criteria specified in the MV Act and the MV Rules for driving transport vehicles will apply to those vehicles whose gross vehicle weight exceeds 7500 kgs, i.e., medium goods vehicle, medium passenger vehicle, heavy goods vehicle and heavy passenger vehicle. Therefore, allowing a person to drive heavy passenger vehicle who has licence to drive only light transport vehicle/Medium Commercial Vehicle would amount to breach of terms and conditions of the policy. 15. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the vehicle in question is a Heavy Passenger Motor vehicle as the gross weight of the vehicle in question which is 16200 kgs exceeds 7500 kgs. At the time of accident, the vehicle in question was being driven by a driver having licence to drive a Light Motor Vehicle/MCW/Transport Vehicle, therefore, it cannot be said that the driver was holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle at the time of the accident which was a heavy passenger motor vehicle. 16. Hence, the findings returned by the learned Tribunal below on issue No. 3 being erroneous are set-aside. The appeal filed by the appellant-Insurance Company is allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent that respondents No. 4, i.e. the owner of the offending vehicle, shall be liable to pay the compensation amount to the claimants and appellant-Insurance Company is not liable to pay the same and it is exonerated from paying the amount of compensation to the petitioners. 17. 17. During the course of the arguments it is stated by the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company that the entire award amount has been paid by it to the petitioners/claimants. Therefore, the appellant-Insurance Company shall be at liberty to recover the aforesaid amount from respondent No.4, i.e. the owner of the offending vehicle, in accordance with law. 18. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the instant appeal stands disposed of, as above. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand(s) disposed of.