Hon'ble TRIPATHI, J.—The Oriental Insurance Company Limited is before this Court being aggrieved by judgment and award dated 20th October, 2008, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal & Fast Track Court No.3, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur in M.A.C.P.No.1411 of 2007 whereby the learned Tribunal is pleased to award an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- (Rupees One Lac Eighty Thousand only) by way of compensation, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') till realisation and proportionate cost of the petition from the opponents jointly and severally. 2. Learned advocate Shri Anal S. Shah for the appellant - Insurance Company vehemently submitted that the learned Tribunal has erred two fold (i) that though the driver of the vehicle did not possess a valid licence for driving a goods vehicle, the learned Tribunal has held that the insurance company is liable for the payment of compensation. In this regard, the learned advocate invited attention of the Court to the relevant discussion in para 6 of the judgment and award which is reproduced for the ready perusal. "The learned Advocate for the claimants has orally argued that as per the contents of the FIR and Panchnama report as well as other documentary evidence like Inquest Panchnama, copy of P.M. Report etc. the accident is proved by the claimants and therefore the opponents are liable for compensation as the petition is filed under Section 163-A of the Act. The otherside learned Advocate has examined Rajeshbhai Gandalal who is serving in the Licence Department of R.T.O. and the said witness has stated that he had issued the licence to Modi Dhanaram Bholaram from R.T.O. which is LMV licence and the licence holder cannot drive goods vehicle. The said witness has been cross-examined by the learned Advocate for the claimant in which it is admitted that his work is to renew licence, to issue duplicate licence and endorsement, to take trial, to take exam etc. work are not entrusted to him. It is admitted that if vehicle is 2700 k.g. then LMV licence cannot be issued and it is admitted that the vehicle involved in the accident is 470 k.g." 3. work are not entrusted to him. It is admitted that if vehicle is 2700 k.g. then LMV licence cannot be issued and it is admitted that the vehicle involved in the accident is 470 k.g." 3. The learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the Insurance Company ought to have held that as the driver was having LMV licence, he was not having a valid licence to drive the goods vehicle. He submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in relying upon a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Annappa Irappa Nesaria and others reported in AIR 2008 SC 1418 . He submitted that this judgment was considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir and another reported in AIR 2008 SC 2266 = 2009(1) CCR 20 (SC). He submitted that the learned Tribunal ought to have appreciated that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the later judgment as the earlier judgment in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Annappa Irappa Nesaria and others (supra) was dated 22.1.2008 whereas the judgment in the matter of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir and Another (supra) was dated 12.5.2008 has explained the earlier judgment and decided the issue otherwise i.e. the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that `a person holding a licence to drive LMV cannot drive a goods vehicle'. The learned advocate when inquired as to what was taken into consideration by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra), the learned advocate fairly submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to take into consideration a notification issued by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sec. (4) of Section 41 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( 59 of 1988) and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in erstwhile Ministry of Surface Transport number No.S.O. 451 (E) dated 19th June, 1992, whereby the Central Government was pleased to prescribe for the types of the motor vehicles. (4) of Section 41 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( 59 of 1988) and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in erstwhile Ministry of Surface Transport number No.S.O. 451 (E) dated 19th June, 1992, whereby the Central Government was pleased to prescribe for the types of the motor vehicles. The learned advocate submitted that as the Central Government was pleased to classify the L.M.V. separate than the goods vehicle, the view was taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court that a person holding L.M.V. Licence cannot be said to have a valid licence to drive a goods vehicle. 4. It was put to the learned advocate as to whether this fact was pointed out to the learned Tribunal by the counter-part of learned advocate for the appellant - Insurance Company, the learned advocate fairly submitted that from the judgment it does not appear to be so. That being so, this Court refuses to entertain the first appeal on the ground that the learned Tribunal has erred in passing the award over-looking the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court. It is a settled position of law that though the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court is presumed to be known to everyone in the country, but when the matter is argued before the Tribunal, it is the duty of the party concerned to take all available contentions. In the present case, this Court has reason to believe that the counterpart of the learned advocate for the insurance company has given a go bye to the later judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court and therefore the learned advocate for the appellant - Insurance Company cannot be heard saying that the learned Tribunal has erred in not following the judgment. 5. It cannot be lost sight that the judgment of Annappa Irappa Nesaria and others (supra) was cited by the learned advocate for the claimants in presence of the counterpart of the learned advocate for the appellant - Insurance Company, and if that is so, the learned advocate for the appellant - Insurance Company ought to have countered the same as it is being pointed out to this Court by the learned advocate for the appellant - Insurance Company. It is not in dispute that neither the subsequent judgment nor the notification in question was ever pointed out to the learned Tribunal. It is not in dispute that neither the subsequent judgment nor the notification in question was ever pointed out to the learned Tribunal. Therefore this contention of the learned advocate for the appellant - Insurance Company is rejected. 6. The learned advocate for the appellant - Insurance Company next submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed a grave error in awarding the compensation of Rs.1,80,000/- in an application under Section 163-A of the Act. In this regard, the learned advocate for the appellant - Insurance Company invited attention of the Court to Section 163-A of the Act and submitted that in an application under Section 163-A of the Act, the learned Tribunal can award only the amount as per the Second Schedule or as indicated in the Second Schedule. He submitted that in an application under Section 163-A of the Act it is not open to the learned Tribunal to determine the `just amount of compensation independent of the Second Schedule'. The learned advocate for the appellant - Insurance Company also invited attention of the Court to Section 166 and Section 168 of the Act and submitted that it is only when an application is filed under Sections 166 and 168 of the Act, it can determine a `just amount of compensation'. He submitted that this particular point is considered by the learned Tribunal in sub-para (2) of para 7 which is reproduced for the ready perusal. "The learned advocate for the claimants has on the point of quantum relied upon a case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd., vs. Satender and others reported in Supreme Appeals Reporter (Civil) Reporter 2007 SAR (Civil) 1 and argued to award Rs.1,80,000/- as total compensation under all the head. "The learned advocate for the claimants has on the point of quantum relied upon a case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd., vs. Satender and others reported in Supreme Appeals Reporter (Civil) Reporter 2007 SAR (Civil) 1 and argued to award Rs.1,80,000/- as total compensation under all the head. I have gone through the aforesaid authority cited by the learned advocate for the claimant in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a child aged about 9 years was knocked down by truck and died - compensation was assessed on the basis of notional income - Notional income was taken at Rs.30,000/- p.a. - After deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, multiplier 17 was adopted - Rs.3,40,000/- was awarded with interest @ 9% p.a. - Appeal dismissed by High Court - Appeal by company - Future of child uncertain - Therefore neither the income of the child is capable of assessment on estimated basis nor the financial loss suffered by the parents is capable of mathematical computation - Every method or more for assessing compensation has to be considered in the background of 'just' - Expression 'just' denotes equitability and non-arbitrary - and held : court awards Rs.1,80,000/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of filing of petition." 7. Learned advocate for the appellant - Insurance Company submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in relying upon this decision over-looking the fact that the case before the learned Tribunal was an application for compensation under Section 163-A of the Act, whereas the case before the Hon'ble Apex Court was under Sections 166 and 168 of the Act, therefore that decision could not have been applied at all. 8. Learned advocate for the appellant - Insurance Company was at pains to point out to this Court that application for compensation under Section 163-A of the Act had a limited scope and in that application the award could have been made only as indicated in the Second Schedule. He submitted that the learned advocate for the claimants was conscious of this fact and therefore in claim petition the amount claimed is only Rs.1,54,500/-. He submitted that therefore the learned Tribunal ought not to have awarded the amount of Rs.1,80,000/-. 9. He submitted that the learned advocate for the claimants was conscious of this fact and therefore in claim petition the amount claimed is only Rs.1,54,500/-. He submitted that therefore the learned Tribunal ought not to have awarded the amount of Rs.1,80,000/-. 9. Learned advocate for the appellant while arguing the matter submitted that the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,80,000/- though the claim petition was under Section 163-A of the Act and the amount claimed is only Rs.1,54,500/- this Court understood the same to mean that without there being any demand/argument by the learned advocate for the claimants the learned Tribunal of its own granted an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- though the claim was only Rs.1,54,500/- but then the learned advocate for the appellant - Insurance Company submitted that no, the learned advocate for the claimants did argue and submitted before the learned Tribunal that in light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Satender and others (supra), an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- be awarded in the case on hand also. 10. The fact that this particular decision was cited in the presence of the counterpart of the learned advocate for the appellant - Insurance Company who did not object to it, the learned Tribunal considering the said authority awarding the amount of Rs.1,80,000/-. This Court refuses to accept this contention at this stage. Besides this Court is also of the opinion that if a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court is brought to the notice of the Tribunal wherein the facts were almost identical as in the present case the minor daughter of three years was killed in an accident whereas case before the Hon'ble Apex Court a boy aged 9 years had met with an accident and died. The learned Tribunal has not erred, and if the learned Tribunal has borrowed the figure from the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court more particularly when the counterpart of the learned advocate for the appellant did not caution the learned Tribunal from adopting that course of conduct, this Court can not accept even the second contention raised by the learned advocate for the appellant - Insurance Company. No other points except these two point was raised before this Court. This Court finds no substance in the appeal. The appeal fails and the same is dismissed. 11. No other points except these two point was raised before this Court. This Court finds no substance in the appeal. The appeal fails and the same is dismissed. 11. As the First Appeal is dismissed, no order on Civil Application.