Judgment :- 1. Both these appeals are directed against the judgment and award in M.V.C. No. 3815/2005 dated 19.12.2006 on the file of M.A.C.T. Bangalore. 2. M.F.A. No. 9924/2007 is by the insurer questioning the liability to pay compensation whereas, M.F.A. No. 6252/2007 is by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation. 3. The brief facts leading to these appeals are as under: On 8.5.2005 at about 3 p.m. the claimant while moving on a motor cycle bearing No. KA-05/R-4931 near Yadavanahalli gate bridge, Hosur Rod, Anekal taluk Bangalore, a tempo bearing No. KA-05/9052 came in a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle of the claimant, as a result of which, he fell down and sustained grievous injury. 4. Before the Tribunal, the claimant got himself examined as PW-1 and also examined Doctor as Pw-2 and produced Exs.P1 to P17. On behalf of the insurer, Ex.R-1-insurance policy and Ex.R-2-driving license of the driver of the tempo were marked. 5. The Tribunal on appreciation of the evidence held that the claimant has proved the actionable negligence and also held that the claimant is entitled for compensation for the injury suffered in the road accident. However, it held that the driver of the tempo had a license only to drive light motor vehicle (non-transport). Ex. R2 is the driving license of the driver of the tempo. Though it is a license to drive light motor vehicle, it did not bear the endorsement to drive the transport vehicle. The Tribunal observed that the license given to drive tractor is sufficient to drive light motor transport tempo, accordingly held that the insurer is liable to indemnify the liability of the owner of the vehicle. It is against the said liability, insurer is in appeal and the claimant is seeking enhancement of compensation. 6. The facts, which are not in dispute are, that the claimant suffered injury in the road accident. It is also not in dispute that the drive of tempo was having a license to drive light motor vehicle and he did not bear an endorsement to drive transport vehicle. It is also not in dispute that, the tempo was a transport vehicle. 7. Sri. It is also not in dispute that the drive of tempo was having a license to drive light motor vehicle and he did not bear an endorsement to drive transport vehicle. It is also not in dispute that, the tempo was a transport vehicle. 7. Sri. A.N. Krishnaswamy, learned Counsel for the insurer submitted that, Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act mandates that in case of license to drive a transport vehicle, an endorsement on the driving license is necessary to permit such driver to drive the transport vehicle, as otherwise even if the driver possesses the license to drive light motor vehicle, he is not authorized to drive a transport vehicle. In this regard, he relied on two judgments of the Apex court reported in 2009 ACJ 1411 in the matter of ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD. –vs- ANGADKOL AND OTHERS and another judgment reported in 2006 ACJ 1936 in the matter of NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD –vs_ ACJ KUSUM RAI AND OTHERS and submitted that the Apex Court in identical circumstances has held that, in case of license to drive light motor vehicle without an endorsement on the license to drive a transport vehicle the insurer is entitled to take a statutory defence under Section 149 to contest the claim against it and if the license to drive transport vehicle requires an endorsement to that effect under Section 3 of the M.V. Act, the claimant is not entitled to recover the compensation from the insurer. It amounts to violation of the terms of the policy and violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. Hence there is no statutory liability on the part of the insurer. Further once it is held that the insurer statutorily is not liable, merely because the driver of the offending vehicle possesses the license, the liability cannot be fastened on to the insurer. 8. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the claimant submitted that the motor vehicle involved in this case being a tempo and it is a light motor vehicle, the definition of “light motor vehicle” as defined under Section 2 clause (21) of the M.V. Act includes tractor and if the person is competent to drive tractor, he is also competent to drive a tempo, further is also competent to drive light motor transport vehicle. The tractor light motor tempo transport or otherwise are all light motor vehicles. The tractor light motor tempo transport or otherwise are all light motor vehicles. The license drive any of the light motor vehicle is sufficient to drive other light motor vehicle. The insurer cannot escape its liability merely because there is no endorsement it cannot be absolved from its liability. He also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2004) 3 SCC 297 in the matter of National Insurance Co Ltd –Vs SWARAN SINGH AND OTHERS and further relied on another unreported judgment of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 2269/2011 dated 2nd March 2011 in the matter of KUSUM LATHA and OTHERS –vs- SATBIR AND OTHERS and submitted that, even assuming that such an endorsement is necessary that itself is not a ground to deny the compensation, as far as claimant is concerned who is a third party, the insurer is liable to pay the same and recover. He further submitted that the capacity to drive the light motor transport vehicle or otherwise cannot be questioned as the driver had the license to drive light motor vehicle. He submitted that, the award of the Tribunal does not call for interference as regard to the liability of the insurer is concerned. He further submitted that the Tribunal while assessing the compensation has not appreciated the evidence of the Doctor and also has not taken into consideration the nature of injury and award of compensation by the Tribunal is on the lower side. 9. In the light of the submission made by both the Counsel, the points that arise for consideration are: (1) Whether the license to drive light motor vehicle without endorsement of authorization to drive transport light motor vehicle as contemplated under Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act would disentitle the claimant to recover the compensation from the insurer? (2) In case such an endorsement is necessary whether the insurer is liable to pay and recover. 10. To appreciate the contentions, it is proper to refer to Section 2 clause (21) the definition of “light motor vehicle” which means. “a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road-roller the unladen weight of any of which does not exceed 7,500 kilograms. 11. 10. To appreciate the contentions, it is proper to refer to Section 2 clause (21) the definition of “light motor vehicle” which means. “a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road-roller the unladen weight of any of which does not exceed 7,500 kilograms. 11. In this case, it is not in dispute that the driver of the offending vehicle did possess the license to drive light motor vehicle. However, it has come in the evidence that the offending vehicle was transport vehicle. Section 3 of M.V. act reads as under: “3 Necessity for driving license. (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving license issued to him authorizing him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle other than a motor cab or motor cycle hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under sub-section (2) of section 75 unless the driving license specifically entitles him so to do. (2)The conditions subjects to which sub-section (1) shall not apply to a person receiving instructions in driving a motor vehicle shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government. Section 3 contemplates that no person shall drive motor vehicle in public unless he holds effective driving license and not person shall drive transport vehicle other than motor cab or motor cycle hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under sub-section(2) of Section 75 unless his driving license specifically entitles him so to do. (underlining supplied). 12. Reading of provisions of Section 3 contemplates that no person is authorized to drive motor vehicle without license. Secondly, if a person is holding license to drive to drive transport vehicle, such license must bear an endorsement as transport vehicle. Section 3 distinguishes the license to drive a vehicle and license to drive a transport vehicle. In case of transport vehicle law requires authorization as contemplated under Section 3 of the Act. 13. It is not in dispute in this case that such an endorsement is not made either on the license of driving the offending vehicle nor separately authorized the driver of the offending vehicle to drive transport vehicle. In case of transport vehicle law requires authorization as contemplated under Section 3 of the Act. 13. It is not in dispute in this case that such an endorsement is not made either on the license of driving the offending vehicle nor separately authorized the driver of the offending vehicle to drive transport vehicle. It is also necessary to mention that the duration of license in case of transport vehicle is three years and in case of other license, it is 20 years. Transport vehicle is defined under Section 2(47) of M.V. Act which means. “a public service vehicle a goods carriage an educational institution bus or private service vehicle. 14. In case of transport vehicle, the risk of third party goods or life is involved. Periodic check might be necessary to renew the license. It is in this context the validity of license or period of license is fixed at 3 years and in other cases. It is 20 years. Reading of this provision and the duration of the license makes it clear that every license who drive light motor vehicle is not automatically authorized to drive the transport vehicle unless he is so authorized in law. 15. Hence, as far as point No.1 is concerned merely because there is a license to drive light motor vehicle, it does not authorize a person to drive light motor transport vehicle. The transport vehicle requires further authorization as contemplated under Section 3 of the Act. 16. As far pay and recovery is concerned often this question has been raised. In KUSUM LATHA’s case (supra) the Apex Court though it has held that license to drive vehicle is necessary has also held that an endorsement to drive transport vehicle is necessary in case of transport vehicle. However, as far as payment of compensation is concerned, it has held that in view of SWARAN SINGH’s case the insurer can pay the compensation and recover from the owner, who is primarily liable. It is in this regard, it is necessary to refer to some of the judgments. 17. In KUSUM RAI’s case (supra) the Apex Court has held that driver having license to drive a jeep and if he is driving a commercial vehicle without such authorization, the insurance company may recover the amount paid from the owner by initiating proceedings before the executing court. 17. In KUSUM RAI’s case (supra) the Apex Court has held that driver having license to drive a jeep and if he is driving a commercial vehicle without such authorization, the insurance company may recover the amount paid from the owner by initiating proceedings before the executing court. Though the Apex Court upheld the contentions of the insurer that holding license to drive light motor vehicle does not ipso facto authorize such driver to drive a light motor transport vehicle. However, it held that in such cases, the insurer can pay it and recover. In the matter of KUSUM LATHA in Civil Appeal No. 2269/2011 (supra) the Apex Court at para-13 held as under: “13. In respect of the dispute about license, the Tribunal has held and, in our view rightly that the insurance company has to pay and then may recover it from the owner of the vehicle. This Court is affirming that direction in view of the principles laid down by a three-judge Bench of this Court in the case of National Insurance company Limited v. Swaran Singh and others reported in (2004) 3 SCC 297 .” The observation of the Apex Court in this judgment makes it clear that even in case of the dispute as regard to the license the principles laid down in SWARAN SINGH’s case are reaffirmed and in view of the principles laid down in SWARAN SINGH’s case the insurance company is directed to pay and recover. 18. In this case, having held that the driver of the offending vehicle had only license to drive light motor vehicle without any authorization to drive light motor transport vehicle, the primary liability is on the owner. It is not in dispute that the insurance policy was in force on the date of the accident, the claimant being a third party and there being a policy covering the risk of third party the third party cannot be denied of the compensation. The violation is alleged against the owner and the driver of offending vehicle. For such breach the remedy of the insurer is to pay and recover. It is not a case of the insurer that the owner of the vehicle has permitted the driver to drive the vehicle without license, but it is the case of the insurer that the license of the driver did not bear the endorsement to drive the transport vehicle. It is not a case of the insurer that the owner of the vehicle has permitted the driver to drive the vehicle without license, but it is the case of the insurer that the license of the driver did not bear the endorsement to drive the transport vehicle. It is admitted that the transport vehicle was a light motor vehicle and the driver was having the license to drive light motor vehicle without endorsement of transport vehicle. 19. Hence the insurer can pay the compensation to the claimant and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. Accordingly I pass the following order: M.F.A No. 9924/2007 filed by the insurer is allowed in part. The award of the Tribunal holding that the insurer is liable to indemnify the compensation on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle had the driving license, is modified and held that the driver of the offending vehicle had only license to drive light motor vehicle and it does not authorize him to drive transport vehicle, as such, the insurer is not liable to indemnify the liability insurer to pay the compensation to the claimant and recover the same from the owner in the same execution proceedings. Insofar as the appeal filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation is concerned, the findings of the Tribunal are based on proper appreciation of the evidence. The Tribunal has awarded reasonable compensation. I do not find there is any error as far as quantum of compensation is concerned. Accordingly, M.F. A No. 6252/2007 is dismissed. The amount in deposit be transferred to the Tribunal.