JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) These four appeals are being disposed of by a common judgement since they arise out of the same accident and the question of law involved is the same. All these appeals are directed against the award of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the main point raised by the Insurance Company is that it is not liable to pay the compensation in view of the fact that the driver did not hold a valid driving license. 2. The undisputed facts are that the vehicle in question is a maxicab. Transport vehicle has been defined in Section 2(47) of the Motor Vehicles Act, to mean a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle. Section 2(35) of the Motor Vehicles Act is the definition clause relating to public service vehicle and includes a maxicab. The vehicle in the present case was a maxicab as is apparent from the registration certificate Ext.RW-1/A. The policy Ext.RW-1/B also clearly indicates that it has been issued in relation to a commercial vehicle. 3. The question whether a person holding a licence to drive a Light Motor Vehicle is entitled or not entitled to drive a transport vehicle has been the subject matter of a number of decisions. 4. A Full Bench of this Court dealt with a similar question and disposed of the reference in view of the judgments of the Apex Court rendered in National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Kusum Rai and others, (2006) 4 SCC 250 & National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Annappa Irappa Nesria and others, (2008) 3 SCC 464 . 5. It is contended by Sh. B.M. Chauhan, Advocate that the present case is squarely covered by the judgment rendered in Annappa Irappa’s case. 6. In Kusum Rai’s case (supra) the Apex Court was dealing with the question as to whether the Insurance Company could be held liable in a case where the driver driving the taxi, a commercial vehicle, did not hold a driving licence entitling him to drive a commercial vehicle. In para 11, the Apex Court held as follows: “11. It has not been disputed before us that the vehicle was being used as a taxi. It was, therefore, a commercial vehicle. The driver of the said vehicle, thus, was required to hold an appropriate licence therefor. In para 11, the Apex Court held as follows: “11. It has not been disputed before us that the vehicle was being used as a taxi. It was, therefore, a commercial vehicle. The driver of the said vehicle, thus, was required to hold an appropriate licence therefor. Ram Lal who allegedly was driving the said vehicle at the relevant time, as noticed hereinbefore, was holder of a licence to drive a Light Motor Vehicle only. He did not possess any licence to drive a commercial vehicle. Evidently, therefore, there was a breach of condition of the contract of insurance. The Appellant, therefore, could raise the said defence.” 7. Thereafter, the Apex Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Prabhu Lal, (2008) 1 SCC 696 , also took a similar view. However, it would be pertinent to mention that, that this case arose out of proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act. The Apex Court in that case held as follows: “33. In our considered view, the State Commission was wrong in reversing the finding recorded by the District Forum. So far as Ashok Gangadhar is concerned, we will deal with the said decision little later but from the documentary evidence on record and particularly, from the permit issued by the Transport Authority, it is amply clear that the vehicle was a 'goods carrier' [Section 2(14)]. If it is so, obviously, it was a 'transport vehicle' falling under clause (47) of Section 2 of the Act. The District Forum was, therefore, right in considering the question of liability of the Insurance Company on the basis that Tata 709 which met with an accident was 'transport vehicle'. 38. We find considerable force in the submission of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company. We also find that the District Forum considered the question in its proper perspective and held that the vehicle driven by Ram Narain was covered by the category of transport vehicle under Clause (47) of Section 2 of the Act. Section 3, therefore, required the driver to have an endorsement which would entitle him to ply such vehicle. It is not even the case of the complainant that there was such endorsement and Ram Narain was allowed to ply transport vehicle. On the contrary, the case of the complainant was that it was Mohd. Julfikar who was driving the vehicle. Section 3, therefore, required the driver to have an endorsement which would entitle him to ply such vehicle. It is not even the case of the complainant that there was such endorsement and Ram Narain was allowed to ply transport vehicle. On the contrary, the case of the complainant was that it was Mohd. Julfikar who was driving the vehicle. To us, therefore, the District Forum was right in holding that Ram Narain could not have driven the vehicle in question. 41. In our judgment, Ashok Gangadhar did not lay down that the driver holding licence to drive a Light Motor Vehicle need not have an endorsement to drive transport vehicle and yet he can drive such vehicle. It was on the peculiar facts of the case, as the Insurance Company neither pleaded nor proved that the vehicle was transport vehicle by placing on record the permit issued by the Transport Authority that the Insurance Company was held liable.” 8. If the matter had ended here the case could have been decided very easily but the Apex court in National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Annappa Irappa Nesria and others, (2008) 3 SCC 464 has not only considered these points but also considered the effect of the amendment made in the Motor Vehicles Act. After considering the entire law the Apex Court held as follows: “20. 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'. A driver who had a valid licence to drive a light motor vehicle, therefore, was authorised to drive a light goods vehicle as well. 21. The amendments carried out in the Rules having a prospective operation, the licence held by the driver of the vehicle in question cannot be said to be invalid in law.” 9. The Apex Court therefore held that w.e.f. 28.3.2001 the endorsement to drive a transport vehicle is necessary but prior to that date such endorsement was not necessary since a light motor vehicle in its definition as it existed prior to said date included a light transport vehicle. It is thus obvious that the endorsement is required only after 28.3.2001. 10. In Oriental Insurance Co. It is thus obvious that the endorsement is required only after 28.3.2001. 10. In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Angad Kol and others, 2009 ACJ 1411 , the Apex Court again held that when a driver is given a licence to drive a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) it would include in its ambit both transport and non-transport vehicles. The Apex Court further went on to hold that for the licence to be effective it should be expressly stated or it should be clearly implied that the licence is valid to drive a transport or non-transport vehicle. In that case, the licence had been issued for LMV only and was valid for 20 years. The Apex Court held that this means that the licence had been issued for a non-transport vehicle since a licence for a transport vehicle could only be issued for only three years at a time. It, therefore, went on to hold that the driver did not hold a valid and effective driving licence to drive a transport vehicle. 11. In the present case also the license was issued for 20 years indicating that it was issued for non transport vehicle. As far as the present case is concerned the endorsement is very clear that it is issued for non transport vehicle. 12. Sh. Ashok Sood urges that in this case the license was issued on 11th April, 2000 i.e. prior to the amendment of the Act and submits that no endorsement was required up to 28.3.2000. He submits that the date of licence should be taken into consideration. On the other hand Sh. B.M. Chauhan, submits that it is not the date of licence but the date of accident which is relevant. 13. If one examines the judgment of the Apex Court in Angad Kol as well as in Prabhu Lal’s cases (supra) the Apex Court clearly held that the amendment is prospective in nature. True it is that the Apex Court did not consider this question as to whether it is the date of licence or the date of accident which should be taken into consideration, I am however clear that once the issue has been decided by the Apex Court then the High Court cannot re-write the judgment of the Apex Court on the ground that some other argument could have been raised before the Apex Court. This Court is bound by the judgment of the Apex Court and in this case since there is no endorsement and the accident occurred after 28.3.2001, therefore, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable. 14. In view of the above discussion the award of the learned Tribunal is modified to the extent that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation and the owner and driver of the vehicle are held liable to pay the compensation jointly and severally. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. No costs.