JUDGMENT 1. - Although this appeal is listed upon the application filed by the claimants for remitting the record of the case to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Banswara for the purpose of disbursement of the amount deposited by the insurance company; but, with the consent of the parties, this appeal is heard for final disposal. 2. In this appeal filed under Section 173, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the appellant insurance company has prayed for quashing the judgment and award dated 17.07.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Banswara in MAC Case No.440/2007, by which, the claim petition filed by the claimants was allowed and a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- has been awarded along with 9% interest from the date of application till the date of realisation in favour of the claimants. 3. As per facts of the case, the claimant-respondents filed claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Banswara under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in which, compensation of Rs. 29,08,000/- was claimed for the loss suffered by them on account of death of their minor son Pradeep who died due to fatal injuries sustained by him on 29.08.2007 when he was going in the offending temo which was driven by its driver rashly and negligently. As per the pleadings, the tempo in question turned turtle and due to said accident the son of claimants, Pradeep died and other girl Miss Jyotika suffered injuries upon her body. 4. In the claim petition is alleged that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the tempo by its driver Bhuralal. Contention of learned counsel for the appellant insurance company is that although claim was filed against respondents No.3 and 4, registered owner and driver respectively; but, the learned tribunal has grossly committed error while exonerating them and holding the insurance company liable for compensation. In the claim petition, it is admitted that tempo was insured with the appellant insurance company but it was pleaded that the claim is not maintainable against the appellant on account of the fact that driver of the vehicle was not possessing valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle in question. 5. In the claim petition, it is admitted that tempo was insured with the appellant insurance company but it was pleaded that the claim is not maintainable against the appellant on account of the fact that driver of the vehicle was not possessing valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle in question. 5. As per the appellant, it was specifically stated in the reply that driver of the vehicle in question was in possession of driving licence for MCY/ LMV which is non-transport vehicle whereas the insured vehicle was registered as light transport vehicle which falls in the category of transport vehicle as per definition in the Act. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that under Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the driver of the vehicle was to have an endorsement authorising him to drive transport vehicle which would have entitled him to drive such vehicle. In the claim proceedings, there was no pleading of the owner of the vehicle that there was any such endorsement on the licence issued by the authority who issued the licence which is transport vehicle. In this view of the matter, it is submitted that learned Tribunal has wrongly held the appellant insurance company liable for compensation. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has wrongly allowed the claim while following the adjudication made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company v. Anappa Irrappa Nisaria, reported in AIR 2008 SC 1418 . It is submitted that in this case the licence possessed by the tempo driver was not valid licence and, in the subsequent judgment delivered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd v. Angad Kol , Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that transport vehicle falling under Clause (47) of Rule 2 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1988 and Section 3 of the Act of 1988 require that driver must have endorsement upon the licence which would entitle him to drive such vehicle. Therefore, according to learned counsel for the appellant, a transport vehicle may be a light motor vehicle but for driving the same, a distinct driving licence is required to be obtained. Therefore, impugned award dated 13.07.2010 may be quashed and set aside. Therefore, according to learned counsel for the appellant, a transport vehicle may be a light motor vehicle but for driving the same, a distinct driving licence is required to be obtained. Therefore, impugned award dated 13.07.2010 may be quashed and set aside. Further, in the alternative, it is submitted that amount of compensation awarded to the claimants may be reduced to the extent the same can be said to be just and reasonable. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants vehemently argued that insurance company is not disputing the fact that the offending vehicle was insured with the appellant insurance company. Further, the accident in which son of the claimants, Pradeep aged about 12 years, died when he was travelling in the said vehicle. It is also not disputed by the appellant insurance company that the driver was possessing driving licence; but, the only objection is raised that endorsement upon the said licence was necessary. 8. It is specifically pleaded in para 4 of the appeal by the appellant that the driver of the vehicle was in possession of licence to drive LMV and if this fact is admitted by the appellant insurance company, then, obviously learned Tribunal has rightly allowed the claim of the claimants while following the judgment in Anappa Irrappa Nisaria's case (supra). Contention which is raised by learned counsel for the appellant before this Court that there was no endorsement as required under Section 3 of the Act of 1988 and, therefore, the claimants are not entitled to compensation is not tenable because no such plea was taken by the insurance company before the Tribunal, so also, no issue was framed by the Clams Tribunal and as such no evidence came on record with regard to the fact that any endorsement was there or not. Therefore, the plea taken by the appellant in this appeal deserves to be rejected. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the impugned award. 10. The Claims Tribunal observed in the award that as per Second Schedule to Section 163A, the legislature has fixed Rs. 15,000/- income in the event of a minor and the Tribunal while applying the multiplier of 15 granted compensation of Rs. 2,25,000/-. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the impugned award. 10. The Claims Tribunal observed in the award that as per Second Schedule to Section 163A, the legislature has fixed Rs. 15,000/- income in the event of a minor and the Tribunal while applying the multiplier of 15 granted compensation of Rs. 2,25,000/-. For granting the said compensation, the Tribunal followed the apex Court judgment in the case of National Insurance Company v. Anappa Irrappa Nisaria, reported in AIR 2008 SC 1418 , in which, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the holder of LMV driving licence is entitled to drive a light transport vehicle which does not exceed in weight 7500 kg. Here, in this case, no plea which is raised it before this Court with regard to endorsement was taken before the Tribunal and in absence of any plea no evidence came on record with regard to the fact that any endorsement upon the driving licence of the driver was in existence or not. In the absence of any plea and evidence, it cannot be presumed that there was no endorsement upon the driving licence which is said to be possessed by the tempo driver. Therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the appellant deserves to be rejected. 11. It This Court earlier had occasion to adjudicate similar appeal, in which, same question was involved. Said appeal was registered as S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.310/2010, New India Assurance Company Ltd. Udaipur v. Shri Goverdhanlal & Others, decided on December 14, 2010 , in which, while taking into consideration the judgment in Anappa Irrappa Nisaria's case (supra), it was held that holder of LMV driving licence is entitled to drive light transport vehicle the weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg. In this view of the matter, there is no substance in this appeal.This appeal is accordingly dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******