**1** S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.63 of 2010. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. VERSUS Ramphool Meena son of Shri Kishan Lal Meena & Others IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR J U D G M E N T S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.63 of 2010. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. ..... Non-claimant-appellant VERSUS Ramphool Meena son of Shri Kishan Lal Meena & Others ..... Respondents Date of Judgment :::: 11th January, 2010. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dalip Singh Mr. Virendra Agrawal, Counsel for the Appellant *** By the Court : Heard learned counsel for the appellant. The insurance-company-appellant has preferred this miscellaneous appeal primarily on the ground being aggrieved by the finding on Issue No.3, wherein it was contended that the deceased did not have any valid driving license at the time of the accident. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the driving license of the deceased was no doubt for driving a tractor, which is defined under Section 2 Clause 21 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as a “light motor vehicle”. **2** S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.63 of 2010. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. VERSUS Ramphool Meena son of Shri Kishan Lal Meena & Others However, it is contended by the learned counsel that a “light motor vehicle” is categorized or defined as the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed (7500) kilograms. The objection is that at the time of accident the tractor was accompanied by a trailer and, therefore, the unladen weight of the tractor trailer combine exceeds 7,500 kilograms. Therefore, there ought to have been an endorsement on the license of the deceased in view of the circular of the Transport Department of Government of Rajasthan dated 29.03.2005 to the effect that he is entitled to drive a transport vehicle. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the endorsement with regard to the transport vehicle not being there on the license of the deceased, he was not entitled to drive the vehicle, along with a trailer, as the unladen weight of the tractor trailer combined together would exceed 7,500 kilograms. As to what was the unladen weight of the two combined, there is no evidence to this effect brought on record by the appellant- insurance-company. That being matter of evidence and since no evidence has been led by the insurance-company to this effect it cannot be inferred that the unladen weight of the two, i.e. the tractor and trailer would exceed 7,500 kilograms. If a party, **3** S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.63 of 2010. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. VERSUS Ramphool Meena son of Shri Kishan Lal Meena & Others wants to challenge the validity of the driving license of this account the burden would lie upon the said party, who alleged that the deceased did not have a proper or valid driving license on account of the categorization of the vehicle for which he was authorized to drive, to prove the same to the satisfaction of the Court/tribunal/authority. In that view of the matter, the objection of the learned counsel for the appellant in the absence of any material to that effect can not be accepted and is, therefore, rejected as there is no material to support the same on record as this is a question of fact. In the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, there being no evidence in support of the objection raised by the appellant the findings of Issue No.3 do not call for any interference in this miscellaneous appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 as an appeal is only provided on substantial question of law. The miscellaneous appeal as well as the stay application are accordingly dismissed summarily. (Dalip Singh), J. Ashok/