Judgment Dev Darshan, J. This is the Insurance Company’s appeal against the order of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, awarding a sum of Rs.1,73,000/- along with interest @ 7½ % per annum from the date of the filing of the petition till its realization. The Insurance Company does not dispute the accident nor the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant. The only point urged before me is as to the liability of the Insurance Company. There is no dispute that the accidented vehicle being driven by Shri Ashok Kumar, respondent No.3, who was the son of the owner Shri Dhayan Singh. It is also admitted case of the parties that the accident occurred on 3.7.2003. The driving licence Ex.RW1/C was valid from 25.5.2000 to 24.5.2003. The endorsement for this period shows it as valid for driving Motorcycle and Light Motor Vehicle. Thereafter the licence was renewed from 5.7.2003 to 4.7.2006 on which there is an endorsement that the licencee is authorized to drive a transport vehicle. In these circumstances, it becomes clear that there was no valid driving licence on 3.7.2003 (date of the accident) as also there was no effective driving licence to drive a light transport motor vehicle. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company places reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Ishwar Chandra and others versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and others, (2007) 10 SCC 650 holding: “9. From a bare perusal of the said provision, it would appear that the licence is renewed in terms of the said Act and the rules framed thereunder. The proviso appended to Section 15(1) of the Act in no uncertain terms states that whereas the original licence granted despite expiry remains valid for a period of 30 days from the date of expiry, if any application for renewal thereof is filed thereafter, the same would be renewed from the date of its renewal. The accident took place 28-4-1995. As on the said date, the renewal application had not been filed, the driver did not have a valid licence on the date when the vehicle met with the accident. 10. In Sawaran Singh (2004)3 SCC297, whereupon the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants relied upon, it is stated : 9SCC p.324, paras 45-46) “45. As on the said date, the renewal application had not been filed, the driver did not have a valid licence on the date when the vehicle met with the accident. 10. In Sawaran Singh (2004)3 SCC297, whereupon the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants relied upon, it is stated : 9SCC p.324, paras 45-46) “45. Thus, a person whose licence is ordinarily renewed in terms of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules framed thereunder, despite the fact that during the interregnum period, namely, when the accident took place and the date of expiry of the licence, he did not have a valid licence, he could during the prescribed period apply for renewal thereof and could obtain the same automatically without undergoing any further test or without having been declared unqualified therefor. Proviso appended to Section 14 is unequivocal terms states that the licence remains valid for a period of thirty days from the day of its expiry. 46. Section 15 of the Act does not empower the authorities to reject an application for renewal only on the ground that there is a break in validity or tenure of the driving licence has lapsed, as in the meantime the provisions for disqualification of the driver contained in Sections 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 will not be attracted, would indisputably confer a right upon the person to get his driving licence renewed. In that view of the matter, he cannot be said to be deli censed and the same shall remain valid for a period of thirty days after its expiry.” 11. This aspect of the matter is now covered by a decision of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kusum Rai, (2006)4 SCC 250 wherein this Court referring to Swaran Singh (2204)3 SCC 297 opined: (SCC pp. 255-56, para 14) “14, This Court in Swaran Singh clearly laid down that the liability of the Insurance Company vis-a-vis the owner would depend upon several factors. The owner would be liable for payment of compensation in a case where the driver was not having a licence at all. It was the obligation on the part of the owner to take adequate care to see that the driver h ad an appropriate licence to drive the vehicle. The owner would be liable for payment of compensation in a case where the driver was not having a licence at all. It was the obligation on the part of the owner to take adequate care to see that the driver h ad an appropriate licence to drive the vehicle. The question as regards the liability of the owner vis-à-vis the driver being not possessed of a valid licence was considered in Swaran Singh stating: (SCC pp 336-37, para 89) ’89. Section 3 of the Act casts an obligation on a driver to hold an effective driving licence for the type of vehicle which he intends to drive. Section 10 of the Act enables the Central Government to prescribe forms of driving licences for various categories of vehicles mentioned in sub-section (2) of the said section. The various types of vehicles described for which a driver may obtain a licence for one or more of them are: (a) motorcycle without gear, (b) motor cycle with gear, (c) invalid carriage, (d) light motor vehicle, (e) transport vehicle, (f) road roller, and (g) motor vehicle of other specified description. The definition clause in Section 2 of the Act defines various categories of the vehicles which are covered in broad types mentioned in sub-Section (2) of Section 10. They are “goods carriage”, “heavy goods vehicle”, “heavy passenger motor vehicle”, “invalid carriage”, “light motor vehicle”, “maxicab”, “medium goods vehicle”, “medium passenger motor vehicle” “motor cab”, “motorcycle”, “omnibus”, “private service vehicle”, “semi trailer”, “tourist vehicle”, “tractor”, “trailer” and “transport vehicle”. In claims for compensation for accidents, various kinds of breaches with regard to the conditions of driving licences arise for consideration before the Tribunal as a person possession a driving licence for “motorcycle without gear”, (sic may be driving a vehicle) for which he has no licence. Cases may also arise where a holder of driving licence for “light motor vehicle” is found to be driving a “maxi-cab”, motor-cab” or “omnibus” for which he has no licence. In each case, on evidence led before the Tribunal a decision has to be taken whether the fact of the driver possession licence for one type of vehicle but found driving another type of vehicle, was the main or contributory cause of accident. In each case, on evidence led before the Tribunal a decision has to be taken whether the fact of the driver possession licence for one type of vehicle but found driving another type of vehicle, was the main or contributory cause of accident. If on facts, it is found that the accident was caused solely because of some other unforeseen or intervening causes like mechanical failures and similar other causes having no nexus with the driver not possession requisite type of licence, the insurer will not be allowed to avoid its liability merely for technical breach of conditions concerning driving licence.’”” (pp,652-654) 3. He also places reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited versus Jarnail Singh and others, 2007(15) SCC 28 holding: “5. It is admitted fact that the driver who drove the vehicle which got involved in the accident had a driving licence which expired on 18.5.1994. The accident had happened more than five months thereafter i.e. on 20.10.1994. It is nobody’s case that the driver had renewed his driving licence for covering any period including the date of the accident. On the other hand, it was the specific case that the driving licence was renewed only with effect from 28.10.1996. The said factual position is not disputed before us. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant Insurance Company has already deposited the amount covered by the award to be disbursed to the claimants. We, therefore, allow this appeal by permitting the appellant Insurance Company to realize the said amount from Respondent 3, the insured. It is open to the Insurance Company to apply to the authorities concerned for execution of this direction as per law. “ (pp. 29 & 30) 4. Lastly, reliance was also placed upon the decision of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Sunita Devi and others, 2011 ACJ 2115 holding: “1. The only question which arises in this case is whether the driver of the vehicle in question held a valid and effective driving licence on the date of the accident or not. 2. The accident out of which the present petition arises took place on 5.6.2005. It is also not disputed that the offending vehicle was a Mahindra Balero Pickup Jeep. Therefore, it was a transport vehicle. 2. The accident out of which the present petition arises took place on 5.6.2005. It is also not disputed that the offending vehicle was a Mahindra Balero Pickup Jeep. Therefore, it was a transport vehicle. It is also not disputed that the driver of the vehicle Balwant Singh was entitled to drive Light Motor Vehicles. There was no endorsement on the licence permitting him to drive the transport vehicle. The learned Tribunal, however, held the Insurance Company liable on the ground that a light motor vehicle is a motor vehicle and merely because the vehicle was a transport vehicle would not amount to violation of the terms of the Act and the Policy and therefore, the Insurance Company could not escape its liability. The learned Tribunal, in my view, committed a grave error and has not taken into consideration a number of judgements. There was some dispute with regard to this aspect earlier but this dispute now stand settled. 3. 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 . 4. It is contended by Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, Advocate that the present case is squarely covered by the judgment rendered in Annappa Irappa’s case. On the other hand the contention of Ms Seema Sood, Advocate is that the case is squarely covered by Kusum Rai’s case. 5. 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. 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. 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.” 6. 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. To us, therefore, the District Forum was right in holding that Ram Narain could not have driven the vehicle in question. 41. 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.” 7. 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.” 8. 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. 9. 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 LMV it would include in its ambit both transport and non-transport vehicles. It is thus obvious that the endorsement is required only after 28.3.2001. 9. 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 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. 10. Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 5 contends that the import of the aforesaid decision is that it will apply to licenses issued after 29.3.2001 and not to the licenses issued prior to the said date, even though the accident may have taken place after 29.3.2001. I am unable to agree with the submission. The law laid down by the Apex Court is very clear that on and with effect from 29.3.2001 no person can be said to hold an effective driving licence to drive a transport vehicle if he only holds a licence entitling him to drive a light motor vehicle without endorsement thereupon that he is entitled to drive a transport vehicle. 11. Therefore, following the decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Annappa Irappa Nesria and others, (2008) 3 SCC 464 it is held that the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the insured and is not liable to pay the amount of compensation since the accident in the present case occurred after 29.3.2001. 12. In view of the above discussion, the appeal has to be allowed and the same is allowed and the Insurance Company is exonerated from its liability. The amount deposited by the Insurance Company be refunded to it. The owner and driver of the vehicle are liable to satisfy the award. 12. In view of the above discussion, the appeal has to be allowed and the same is allowed and the Insurance Company is exonerated from its liability. The amount deposited by the Insurance Company be refunded to it. The owner and driver of the vehicle are liable to satisfy the award. No order as to costs.” (pp.2115-2118) 5. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant relies upon the decision in Ram Babu Tiwari versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others, 2008 ACJ 2654 to urge that even in this situation, it would be a pay and recover order which the Court should pass. He fortified his submission by the decision of the Delhi High Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Gomti Devi and others 2009 ACJ 2827. 6. Adverting to the facts of the present case, what I find is that the owner and the driver of the vehicle are none other then father and son. In this eventuality, the driver cannot be treated as a third party where the owner could be said to have conducted a reasonable inquiry to prima facie ascertain, satisfy himself that the driving licence is in order. The owner and the driver of the vehicle were duly served but nobody appears on their behalf despite the fact that the case was adjourned time and again for hearing. No body put in appearance on behalf of these respondents on 27.11.2012, 29.11.2012, 30.11.2012 and 3.12.2012 as also today. 7. Taking into consideration, the law point as urged, this appeal is allowed. The liability shall be recoverable from the owner and the driver that is respondents No.2 and 3. Costs of Rs.11,000/- is imposed on these respondents. It has been brought to my notice that the part of the awarded amount stands released to the claimant. In this event, this amount shall not be recoverable from the claimant. It will be open to the Insurance Company to recover such amount from the owner and the driver, respondents No.2 and 3. Direction is also issued that the balance of the amount deposited by the Insurance Company in this Court be released to it on its furnishing the bank account number along with photo copy of the bank pass book. 8. All the pending applications also stands disposed of.