JUDGMENT : 1. It is an Insurer’s appeal challenging its liability to comply the award passed by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Humnabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short). By the impugned judgment and award the Tribunal allowed the claim petition filed by claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1986, pertaining to a death in a vehicular accident involving the vehicle of the insured. 2. The short question that would arise in this appeal is whether the Tribunal was justified in fastening the liability on the insurer of the offending vehicle though the driver of the vehicle did not possess transport endorsement on his driving licence LMV (NT). 3. This question is already answered by the constitutional bench of the Apex Court in the matter of Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others reported in AIR 2017 SC (Civil) 2531 at paragraph Nos. 46 (I) to (IV) in the reference case thus: “46(I) ‘Light motor vehicle’ as defined in section 2(21) of the Act would include a transport vehicle as per the weight prescribed in section 2(21) read with section 2(15) and 2(48). Such transport vehicles are not excluded from the definition of the light motor vehicle by virtue of Amendment Act No.54/1994. (ii) A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg. would be a light motor vehicle and also motor car or tractor or a road roller, ‘unladen weight’ of which does not exceed 7500 kg. and holder of a driving licence to drive class of “light motor vehicle” as provided in section 10(2)(d) is competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg. or a motor car or tractor or road roller, the “unladen weight” of which does not exceed 7500 kg. That is to say, no separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class as enumerated above. A licence issued under section 10(2)(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54/1994 and 28.3.2001 in the form. That is to say, no separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class as enumerated above. A licence issued under section 10(2)(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54/1994 and 28.3.2001 in the form. (iii) The effect of the amendment made by virtue of Act No.54/1994 w.e.f. 14.11.1994 while substituting clauses (e) to (h) of section 10(2) which contained “medium goods vehicle” in section 10(2)(e), medium passenger motor vehicle in section 10(2)(f), heavy goods vehicle in section 10(2)(g) and “heavy passenger motor vehicle” in section 10(2)(h) with expression ‘transport vehicle’ as substituted in section 10(2)(e) related only to the aforesaid substituted classes only. It does not exclude transport vehicle, from the purview of section 10(2)(d) and section 2(41) of the Act i.e. light motor vehicle. (iv) The effect of amendment of Form 4 by insertion of “transport vehicle” is related only to the categories which were substituted in the year 1994 and the procedure to obtain driving licence for transport vehicle of class of “light motor vehicle” continues to be the same as it was and has not been changed and there is no requirement to obtain separate endorsement to drive transport vehicle, and if a driver is holding licence to drive light motor vehicle, he can drive transport vehicle of such class without any endorsement to that effect.” 4. Sri Rahul R. Asture, learned counsel for the appellant – insurer submits that the Apex Court in SLP No.27787/2017 ordered notice in which case question of law raised by the petitioner insurance company is: “Whether Hon’ble High Court ought not to have wrongly dismissed the appeal while wholly relying on the judgment of this Hon’ble Court in Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Ors.; C.A.5826 of 2011 which has defeated its objective has led to more ambiguity towards the definition of the Light Motors Vehicle (LMV) as per Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as well as in regard of the amended Section 10(2) of said Act, 1988 as the two stands contracting other provisions of the act in a way making them infructuous. That the passing of the pay and recover order such as this one after appreciating the contentions and circumstances of the petitioner herein would out rightly defeat the mandate as prescribed and intention of the legislature in incorporating the provisions of the MV Act?” The hearing date of the above case is fixed on 16.01.2018. Hence, at this stage liability will not shift on the Insurance Company unless the matter in the said SLP is adjudicated. 5. However, for the present it is sufficient to notice that as of now the question of law is governed by the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Mukund Dewangan’s case. The vehicle involved in the accident was Tata – Indica/transport vehicle and its gross weight is 1005 kg. thereby fall within the description of Light Motor Vehicle contemplated by Section 2(21) of Motor Vehicles Act. The driver had a driving licence to drive light motor vehicle (NT) which was in currency in view of the above finding to the referred point of law transport endorsement was not a requirement. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. The appellant/Insurance Company is directed to satisfy the award of the Tribunal within three weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. Registry is directed to return the amount in deposit to the concerned Tribunal.