Judgment :- Subhash B. Adi, J. These two appeals arise out of the common judgment and award in M.V.C.Nos.8458 and 8459 of 2005 dated 8th November 2006 on the file of M.A.C.T., Bangalore. 2. Respondent No.2 in both the cases are the claimants. On 11.11.2005 at about 7.45 p.m., both claimants were proceeding on scooter as a rider and pillion rider on the extreme left side of road. When it reached GK.Paints factory, a tempo bearing No.KA-03/A-4874 came from opposite direction driven in high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against both the claimants, as a result of which, they fell down and sustained grievous injury. They were taken to Doddaballapura Government Hospital, from there they were shifted to Bowring Hospital, they took treatment as inpatient and also as outpatient. 3. Before the Tribunal, claimants got themselves examined as PWs-1 and 2. They also examined one doctor as PW-3. Exs.P1 to P5 were marked in their evidence and on behalf of the Insurance Company, one N.Krishna Murthy was examined and Exs.R1 and R2 were marked. The Tribunal on consideration of the evidence granted compensation of Rs.2,43,000/- in M.V.C.No.8458/2005 and Rs.2,78,000/-in M.V.C.No.8459/2005. 4. Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company submits that, the Tribunal has found that, the driver of the offending vehicle had only licence to drive light motor vehicle. However, the vehicle involved in the accident is a goods transport vehicle and he had no valid licence to drive the goods transport vehicle. As such, the risk is not covered under the policy. He also submitted that, a specific contention was raised before the Tribunal. The Tribunal considering the judgment of the Apex Court reported in National Insurance Company Limited Vs Gadigewwa &. Others 2005 ACJ page 40 has held that, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. 5. In support of his case, he relied on a judgment reported in New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir & Another 2008 AIR SCW 4048 and submitted that, the licence granted to transport vehicle is different from licence granted to light motor vehicle and submitted that, the licence granted to light motor vehicle is for 20 years whereas, in respect of transport vehicle, it is only 3 years. In this regard, he relied on para-10 of the said judgment and submitted that, the contention raised by the Insurance Company in the said case that, the driver of the light motor vehicle cannot be said to have held licence to drive goods transport vehicle is accepted by the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court has held that the Insurance Company is not liable. 6. Per contra, learned Counsel for the claimants relied on a judgment reported in Oriental Insurance Co. Vs Zaharulnisha & Others 2008 AIR SCW 3251 and submitted that, the Apex Court considering the judgment reported in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Swaran Singh (2004) 3 SCC 297 has held that, as against third party, the insurer is a deemed judgment debtor in respect of liability. Even in case of defective licence, the insurer can satisfy the claim of the claimants and recover the same from the owner. In this regard, she relied on para-16 of the said judgment. She also relied on another judgment of the Apex Court reported in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Annappa Irappa Nesaria And Others 2008(2) ACJ 721 and submitted that, light motor vehicle may not be a transport vehicle and light motor vehicle continued to cover both light passenger carriage vehicle and light goods carriage vehicle. The driver, who had valid licence to drive light motor vehicle, is authorized to drive light transport vehicle as well. Relying on these two judgments, learned Counsel for the claimants submitted that, even assuming that, the licence granted to the driver of the offending vehicle is light motor vehicle, since the vehicle involved is medium transport vehicle, he was authorized to drive the said vehicle and submitted that, even in case where the licence is defective or is for some other classified vehicle, the Insurance Company can pay and recover the same. 7. The only question that arises for consideration in these appeals is, 8. No doubt, in the case of Annappa Irappa Nesaria (supra) the Apex Court has "whether a driver holding licence for light motor vehicle can also drive a medium goods transport vehicle (goods transport vehicle)?" observed that: "16. From what has been noticed hereinbefore, it is evident that transport vehicle has now been substituted for `medium goods vehicle' and `heavy goods vehicle'. From what has been noticed hereinbefore, it is evident that transport vehicle has now been substituted for `medium goods vehicle' and `heavy goods vehicle'. The light motor vehicle continued, at the relevant point of time, to cover both, light passenger carriage vehicle and light goods carriage vehicle." However, this judgment fell for consideration in the case of Roshanben (Supra) wherein, the Apex Court considering the judgment of Annappa's case (supra) has observed at para-14 as under: "14. It was noticed that the provisions of the Act have undergone a change. The definition of `light motor vehicle' would not include a light transport vehicle. In that case, keeping in view the date on which the accident took place, it was held: "From what has been noticed hereinbefore, it is evident that transport vehicle has now been substituted for 'inediurn goods vehicle' and `heave' goods vehicle'. The light motor vehicle continued, at the relevant point of time, to cover both, light passenger carriage vehicle and light goods carriage vehicle. A driver who had a valid licence to drive a light motor vehicle, therefore, was authorized to drive a light goods vehicle as well." In para-15 of the said judgment, the Apex Court observed that, the judgment of the High Court holding that the Insurance Company is liable is not sustainable. However, in exercise of power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India had directed the Insurance Company to pay and recover the same from the owner. 9. In the case of Zahar Ulnisha (Supra) at para-16, the Apex Court has observed as under: "16. The judgment proceeds to hold that under the MV Act, holding of a valid driving licence is one of the conditions of contract of insurance. Driving of a vehicle without a valid licence is an offence. However, the question herein is whether a third party involved in an accident is entitled to the amount of compensation granted by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal although the driver of the vehicle at the relevant time might not have a valid driving licence but would be entitled to recover the same from the owner or driver thereof It is trite that where the. insurers, relying upon the provisions of violation of law by the assured, take an exception to pay the assured or a third party, they must prove a wilful violation of the law by the assured. insurers, relying upon the provisions of violation of law by the assured, take an exception to pay the assured or a third party, they must prove a wilful violation of the law by the assured. In some cases, violation of criminal law, particularly violation of the provisions of the MV Act, may result in absolving the insurers but, the same may not necessarily hold good in the case of a third party. In any event, the exception applies only to acts done intentionally or "so recklessly as to denote that the assured did not care what the consequences of his Act might be ". The provisions of sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 149 of the MV Act may be considered as to the liability of the insurer to satisfy the decree at the first instance. The liability of the insurer is a statutory one. The liability of the insurer to satisfy the decree passed in favour of a third party is also statutory." By reading of para-16 of the said judgment, it is clear that, unless the insurer proves that the violation was wilful or done intentionally or so recklessly knowing fullwell and without caring the consequence of his Act what might be, the insurers are liable, the Apex Court has observed that, insurer is liable to the third party, it is deemed to be judgment debtor. The insurer is statutorily liable to pay and recover. 10. At para-18 of the said judgment it is further observed: "18. In the light of the above-settled proposition of law, the appellant-insurance company cannot be held liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants for the cause of death of Shukurullah in road accident which had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of scooter by Rain Surat who admittedly had no valid and effective licence to drive the vehicle on the day of accident. The scooterist was possessing driving licence of driving HMV and he was driving totally different class of vehicle which Act of his is in violation of Section 10(2) of the MV Act. The scooterist was possessing driving licence of driving HMV and he was driving totally different class of vehicle which Act of his is in violation of Section 10(2) of the MV Act. In the result, the appeal is allowed to the limited extent and it is directed that the appellant-insurance company though not liable to pay the amount of compensation, but in the nature of this case it shall satisfy the award and shall have the right to recover the amount deposited by it shall satisfy the award and shall have the right to recover the amount deposited by it along with interest from the owner of the vehicle." No doubt, from the above judgment, it is clear that, a person authorized to drive one kind of vehicle drives other kind of vehicle and commits an accident and that act of the insured was willful. and done so recklessly, in such case, the Insurance Company may not be liable to pay compensation to the claimant, however, in case of third party, the insurer becomes the judgment debtor, in view of the statutory liability. Even otherwise, it is open to the Insurance Company to pay and recover. 11. It is not the case of the insurer that driver of the offending vehicle had no licence. The driver of the offending vehicle was possessing licence to drive light motor vehicle and was driving a tempo transporting goods, though in view of the amendment, it may not be a medium goods vehicle, but it is a goods vehicle and he may not be authorized to drive. However, the insurer must show that the insured has deliberately, intentionally, knowing fullywell the consequence of engaging such driver, still he had authorized the driver to drive, in such case, the insurer may not be liable statutorily, but nothing is proved in this case that, whether engaging of the driver of the offending vehicle by the insured was willful or deliberate or was grossly negligent. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that, the Insurance Company can pay the compensation and may recover from the insured. Insofar as third party is concerned, liability holds good. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. The amount in deposit be transferred to the Tribunal with liberty to the insurer to take such steps to recover the amount from the owner in accordance with law.