JUDGMENT : Surinder Singh, J. The Insurance Company felt aggrieved by the award passed by the learned MACT Kullu in Claim petition No. 1 of 2010 decided on 29th March, 2011 and has filed the present appeal assailing the findings on Issue No. 4 with respect to the validity of the driving licence of respondent No. 5 Deep Kumar, who was owner-cum-driver of alleged offending vehicle, Maruti Van No. HP-01-A-0516, which was being plied as a taxi. Precisely, facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 23rd September, 2009 deceased Khekh Ram, predecessor-in-interest of respondents No. 1 to 4 alongwith one Ram Krishan and Ramesh Chand were passengers in the said vehicle, being driven by respondent No. 5 Deep Kumar in a rash and negligent manner. As a consequence thereof, it went off the road and fell 50 feet down into a gorge near village Jallugran causing death of Shri Khekh Ram (36). Said Shri Khekh Ram was an employee in the department of Director General, Ministry of Home affairs, SSB East Block-V R.K. Puram, New Delhi and was getting monthly salary of Rs. 11,823/- in the rank of Naik-cook. 2. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 filed claim petition, which was allowed and the award in their favour was passed by the learned Tribunal to the tune of Rs. 16,14,400/- with interest @ 7% per annum w.e.f. 1st January, 2010, i.e. the date of filing the petition till its realization from the appellant and respondent No. 5, however, ultimate liability to pay the aforesaid amount was on the appellant-Insurance Company of the vehicle in question. 3. The appellant-Insurance Company had contested the claim petition before the learned Tribunal on the ground that respondent No. 5 was not having a valid and effective driving licence, on this plea Issue No. 4 was framed. 4. The licence which was produced by respondent No. 5 before the learned Tribunal is Mark B. The appellant-Insurance Company also obtained information Ext. RX under the RTI Act qua this license which reveals that respondent No. 5 initially was only authorized to drive motorcycle/scooter without gear and w.e.f. 7th September, 2007 he was authorized to drive light motor vehicle.(non-transport). This license was valid up to 31st January, 2020. RX under the RTI Act qua this license which reveals that respondent No. 5 initially was only authorized to drive motorcycle/scooter without gear and w.e.f. 7th September, 2007 he was authorized to drive light motor vehicle.(non-transport). This license was valid up to 31st January, 2020. But, the learned Tribunal took note of the unladen weight of the alleged offending vehicle, as contained in Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act and then took a view that respondent No. 5 was authorized to drive the light transport vehicle which includes the transport vehicle (LMV). To come to this conclusion it relied upon paras 23, 24 and 25, of Full Bench of this Court in Prem Singh v. Bal Dassi, 2010 A.C.J. 725, which read as follows : 23. Para 16 of the judgment in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Annappa Irappa Nesaria and Others, (2008) 3 SCC 464 , reads as under : (16) From what has been noticed hereinbefore, it is evident that the 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 authorized to drive a light goods vehicle as well 24. The said judgments have been again relied upon in New Indian Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir and Another, (2008) 8 SCC 253 . 25. In the light of law laid down by the Apex Court, the reference is covered and is answered accordingly. 5. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Usha Devi and others, 2012 (1) Sim. L.C. 185, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta was confronted with the identical issue. The learned Brother took note of the judgments referred in Prem Singh's case supra viz. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kusum Rai and Others, (2006) 4 SCC 250 , and National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Annappa Irappa Nesaria and Others, (2008) 3 SCC 464 , and observed that in Kusum Rai's case above, the Apex Court dealt with the question as to whether the Insurance Company can 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. Annappa Irappa Nesaria and Others, (2008) 3 SCC 464 , and observed that in Kusum Rai's case above, the Apex Court dealt with the question as to whether the Insurance Company can 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. To answer this query, His Lordship took note of para 11 of the Apex Court in Kusum Rai's case supra, which reads as under : 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. Referring to New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Prabhu Lal, (2008) 1 S.C.C. 696 , a judgment of the Supreme Court whereby, their Lordships took similar view in the proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act. Further relying upon National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Annappa Irappa Nesaria and Others, (2008) 3 SCC 464 , wherein the Apex Court also considered the points raised in Prabhu Lal's case (supra) and also considered the fact of amendment in the Motor Vehicles Act and on consideration of the entire law, it 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. 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. Thus, the Apex Court came to the conclusion that w.e.f. 28th March, 2001 the endorsement to drive the transport vehicle is necessary but prior to that date such endorsement was not necessary. Since 'light motor vehicles' in its definition as existed prior to it included 'light transport vehicle', therefore, it is clear that after the aforesaid date, the endorsement to drive the transport vehicle is imperative. 6. The Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Angad Kol and Others, (2009) 11 SCC 356 , took note of Section 10 of the Act which prescribes the form and contents of licences to derive and in para-10 observed as under : 10. The distinction between 'Light Motor Vehicle' and a 'Transport Vehicle' is therefore, evident. A Transport Vehicle may be a light motor vehicle but for the purpose of driving the same, a distinct licence is required to be obtained. The distinction between a 'Transport Vehicle' and a' Passenger vehicle' can also be noticed from Section 14 of the Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 14 provides for duration of a period of 3 years in case of an effective licence to drive a 'Transport Vehicle' whereas in case of any other licence, it may remain effective for a period of 20 years. Thus, it was held that licence having been granted for a period of 20 years, a presumption therefore, arises that it was meant for the purpose of a vehicle other than 'Transport vehicle'. Had the driving licence been granted for transport vehicle, the tenure thereof could not have exceeded three years. Thus, it went on to hold in that case that the driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence for driving a goods vehicle. 7. While considering the above judgments, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Usha Devi's case supra took note of para 13 and 14 of the Apex Court judgment relied in Kusum Lata's case above, which reads as under : 13. 7. While considering the above judgments, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Usha Devi's case supra took note of para 13 and 14 of the Apex Court judgment relied in Kusum Lata's case above, which reads as under : 13. In respect of the dispute about licence, 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 Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh and Others, (2004) 3 SCC 297 . 14. The appeal is therefore, allowed. The judgments of the Tribunal and the High Court are set aside. The Insurance Company is to pay the aforesaid amount in the form of a bank draft in the name of appellant No. 1 with interest as aforesaid within a period of six weeks from date and deposit the same in the Tribunal. This direction should be strictly complied with by the Insurance Company. Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Further in view of Kusum Lata's case supra, it was concluded in Usha Devi's case above that in case where there is violation of driving licence, the Insurance Company can be asked to satisfy the award with liberty reserved to it to recover it from the insured. 8. Since, the point in question in the present appeal is an identical issue, covered by Usha Devi's case supra and I have no reason to differ therewith, thus, following the above ratio, in the instant case, the impugned award is modified to the extent that the Insurance Company shall satisfy the award passed by the learned Tribunal but the company is left at liberty to recover the same from respondent No. 5, without filing a separate suit for recovery, by filing an execution petition before the learned Tribunal. The appeal stands accordingly disposed off. C.M.Ps. No. 172 & 173/2012 9. CMP No. 172 of 2012 has been moved for release of the amount by applicant Bhima Devi widow of deceased, therefore, 50% of the amount falling in her share alongwith proportionate interest accrued thereon be released to her and be remitted to her individual bank account as mentioned in para 5 of her application. Remaining amount shall remain deposited against FDR, as per procedure. 10. Remaining amount shall remain deposited against FDR, as per procedure. 10. In CMP No. 173 of 2012 Smt. Izy Devi is an quite aged mother of the deceased. She is stated be suffering from cancer and requires money for her treatment as per certificate Annexure A1 and A2 issued by IGMC, therefore, she be released 50% of her share with proportionate interest and be remitted to her individual bank account as mentioned in para 5 of the application. 11. Both these applications stand disposed off. The shares of minor claimants shall remain deposited in the FDR till they attain the age of majority.