vehicle/loader was registered in the transport office. He submits that as the loader is motor vehicle, therefore, under the provisions of Section 39 of the Act of 1988 its registration was mandatory. Absence of registration will lead to breach of policy conditions. Owner of offending vehicle has not brought in record copy of registration certificate, hence, it will be presumed that on the date of accident, offending vehicle was not registered. He next contended that learned Claims Tribunal failed to take into consideration evidence of Suresh Singh Rajput (NAW-1), Investigating Officer, who admitted that initially at the time of seizure of offending vehicle, description of vehicle i.e. Modal Number, Engineer Number, Chassis Number has been mentioned differently, which was corrected after perusing invoice submitted before police by owner of offending vehicle. He contended that admission made by Investigating Officer of correction of description of vehicle recorded earlier would show that vehicle which is insured by appellant/Insurance Company has been implanted subsequently afterthought. Therefore, no liability can be fastened upon appellant/Insurance Company. He also submits that on the date of accident, driver of offending vehicle was not possessed with valid and effective driving license as he was possessing license authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle only whereas loader will fall under clause of miscellaneous and special type of vehicle and according to Section 10 of the Act of 1988, license is required with an authorization to drive motor vehicle of a specified description.
