vehicle and the driver of the mini lorry did not possess the valid license to drive the offending vehicle. Though the driver had license to drive Light Motor Vehicle which is the transport vehicle, he had no license to drive offending vehicle. Subsequently, he obtained the license to drive MHMV transport goods vehicle also. On the basis of evidence of RW.1 and RW.2, the tribunal came to the conclusion that the respondent No.1/Owner has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy by handing over the offending vehicle to the person who did not possess the valid driving license to drive medium goods vehicle, hence, learned counsel argued that the tribunal erred in coming to the said wrong conclusion and fastening the liability on owner of the offending lorry. In support of his arguments, he relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in [2017 (14) SCC 663] in the case of Mukund Devagan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. wherein the definition of Section 2(21) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is discussed at paragraph Nos.60, 60.2 and 60.3 of the said judgment. Learned counsel argued that the since the unladen weight of the goods vehicle does not exceed the weight of 7500 k.g. it comes under the definition of ‘Light Motor Vehicle’ and since the driver had license to drive said vehicle, there is no breech of terms of policy. With these main contentions, he prayed to re-determine the
