JUDGMENT ARUN BHANSALI, J. 1. These appeals are directed against judgment and awards dated 11.01.2011 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chittorgarh ('the Tribunal'), whereby, the Tribunal while accepting the applications for compensation, though has awarded various amounts to the claimants, the respondent New India Assurance Company Limited has been exonerated and by holding the driver of the motor cycle liable, for contributory negligence the compensation awarded has been reduced by 30%. 2. The applications for compensation were filed by legal representatives of Bhagwan Lal, Dalchand & Rekha, inter alia, with the averments that Bhagwan Lal, Dalchand & Rekha were travelling on a motor cycle being driven by Bhagwan Lal; when they reached Chittorgarh Bhilwara Highway, the offending Jeep being driven rashly and negligently by Mohan Lal came from the opposite direction stuck the motor cycle, resulting in injuries to Bhagwan Lal, Dalchand and Rekha, to which, Bhagwan Lal ultimately succumbed. On account of the said accident various amounts of compensation for death of Bhagwan Lal and injuries suffered by Dalchand and Rekha were claimed. 3. The applications were contested by the non-claimants on various counts. 4. The insurer of the Jeep took the plea that the driver of the Jeep was not in a possession of a valid driving licence, inasmuch as, the Jeep was being used for commercial purpose, whereas, the driver was not having any endorsement of authorization to drive commercial vehicle on his licence. Further plea regarding contributory negligence of the driver of the motor cycle, which resulted in the accident, was also raised. 5. The Tribunal based on the pleadings of the parties framed as many as seven issues. On behalf of the claimants four witnesses were examined and 128 documents were exhibited. On behalf of non-claimants five witnesses were examined and 11 documents were exhibited. 6. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by driver of the Jeep. However, as three persons were riding the motor cycle at the time of accident, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was 30% contribution of the driver of motor cycle in the said accident. However, as three persons were riding the motor cycle at the time of accident, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was 30% contribution of the driver of motor cycle in the said accident. While deciding the issue pertaining to liability of the Insurance Company, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that as there was no endorsement on the licence of the driver of the Jeep, regarding authorization to drive commercial vehicle, there was violation of policy condition and, as such the insurer of the Jeep was not liable. So far as the insurer of the motor cycle was concerned, the same was exonerated. 7. After considering the evidence available on record, the Tribunal awarded various sums after deducting 30% towards contributory negligence. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant owner of the Jeep submitted that the finding of the Tribunal regarding exonerating the Insurance Company on account of driver being not in possession of a valid driving licence is untenable in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Ors, (2017) AIR SC 3668, wherein, the said aspect has been thoroughly considered and principles laid down in this regard. 9. Learned counsel for the claimants-appellants submitted that the Tribunal was not justified in holding the driver of the motor cycle liable for contributory negligence only on account of the fact that three persons were riding the motor cycle. It is submitted that the Tribunal has not discussed anything while coming to the conclusion regarding contributory negligence. 10. It is further submitted that in so far as the case of Dalchand and Rekha, who were pillion riders are concerned, they cannot be held liable for contributory negligence/their compensation cannot be reduced as qua them, even if Bhagwan Lal had contributed to the accident, the same would be a case of composite negligence. It was prayed that the award to the extent that Insurance Company has been exonerated and that compensation has been reduced by 30% on account of contributory negligence be set aside. 11. Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in United India Ins. Co. Ltd., Jodhpur v. Smt. Santosh Devi & Ors,2013 2 ACTC(Raj) 816 and Gopal Kanwar (Smt.) & Ors. v. Shravan & Ors,2015 1 ACTC(Raj) 493. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company vehemently opposed the submissions. 11. Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in United India Ins. Co. Ltd., Jodhpur v. Smt. Santosh Devi & Ors,2013 2 ACTC(Raj) 816 and Gopal Kanwar (Smt.) & Ors. v. Shravan & Ors,2015 1 ACTC(Raj) 493. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company vehemently opposed the submissions. It was submitted that admittedly three persons were riding on the motor cycle at the time of accident and, therefore, they have contributed to the accident. Submissions were also made that Dalchand claimant specifically admitted in his statement that there was head on collision between two vehicles and, therefore, the contributory negligence was apparent. 13. Submissions were also made that the compensation awarded is excessive even as per the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors, (2017) AIR SC 5157 and, therefore, the compensation be reduced. 14. Reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in Roshan Lal v. Deva Ram & Ors, 2009 1 ATCT(Raj) 70 and Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Trans. Corpn. Ltd. v. Abdul Salam & Ors, (2004) ACJ 1827. 15. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 16. In so far as the issue pertaining to the liability of Insurance Company is concerned, the Tribunal has recorded a finding that though the licence (Exhibit-4) authorizing driving of LMV issued was for the period 22.06.2001 to 21.02.2021 there was no endorsement for driving the transport vehicle and as the vehicle in question was being operated on taxi permit, there was violation of policy condition in this regard. 17. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan while dealing with the said aspect, inter alia, laid down as under:- "46. Section 10 of the Act requires a driver to hold a licence with respect to the class of vehicles and not with respect to the type of vehicles. In one class of vehicles, there may be different kinds of vehicles. If they fall in the same class of vehicles, no separate endorsement is required to drive such vehicles. As light motor vehicle includes transport vehicle also, a holder of light motor vehicle licence can drive all the vehicles of the class including transport vehicles. In one class of vehicles, there may be different kinds of vehicles. If they fall in the same class of vehicles, no separate endorsement is required to drive such vehicles. As light motor vehicle includes transport vehicle also, a holder of light motor vehicle licence can drive all the vehicles of the class including transport vehicles. It was pre-amended position as well the post-amended position of Form 4 as amended on 28.3.2001. Any other interpretation would be repugnant to the definition of "light motor vehicle" in section 2(21) and the provisions of section 10(2)(d), Rule 8 of the Rules of 1989, other provisions and also the forms which are in tune with the provisions. Even otherwise the forms never intended to exclude transport vehicles from the category of 'light motor vehicles' and for light motor vehicle, the validity period of such licence hold good and apply for the transport vehicle of such class also and the expression in Section 10(2)(e) of the Act 'Transport Vehicle' would include medium goods vehicle, medium passenger motor vehicle, heavy goods vehicle, heavy passenger motor vehicle which earlier found place in section 10(2)(e) to (h) and our conclusion is fortified by the syllabus and rules which we have discussed. Thus we answer the questions which are referred to us thus: (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, 'un-laden 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. 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. (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." 18. In view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court the finding recorded by the Tribunal cannot be sustained and the same is, therefore, reversed. 19. So far as the issue of contributory negligence is concerned, a perusal of the site map (Exhibit-3) indicates that the motor cycle in question was lying on its correct side of the road and the offending Jeep came from the other side and stuck the motor cycle, resulting in the accident in question. The mere fact that claimant Dalchand stated that there was head on collision, by itself cannot be a reason to assume that there was any contributory negligence on part of the driver of motor cycle. 20. The mere fact that claimant Dalchand stated that there was head on collision, by itself cannot be a reason to assume that there was any contributory negligence on part of the driver of motor cycle. 20. A perusal of the finding recorded by the Tribunal indicates that it has assumed that if more than two persons are riding a two wheeler the same would ipso facto result in contributory negligence of driver of such vehicle. The said finding also apparently is contrary to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. v. Kastoori Devi & Ors, (1988) ACJ 8, relying on which, this Court in the case of Smt. Santosh Devi while distinguishing another judgment of this Court in the case of Yuvraj v. Shri Prakash Chandra & Ors. : S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 804/1996, decided on 04.01.2008 at Jaipur Bench, laid down as under:- "21. It is thus clear from what has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that negligence ordinarily means breach of a legal duty to take care, whereas contributory negligence means the failure by a person to use reasonable care for the safety of either of himself or his property so that he himself or his property, becomes blameworthy in part as author of his own wrong. 22. Provisions of Section 128 as noticed above are safety measures for the driver and pillion rider and breach of such safety measures which may amount to negligence on part of the driver of the motor cycle, but cannot be termed as contributory negligence, unless the immediate cause of the accident or damage suffered by the driver or pillion rider would be on account of violation of the said provision." 21. Similarly in the case of Smt. Gopal Kanwar in similar circumstances, it was laid down as under:- "21. Well it is true that Section 128 of the Act of 1988 postulates certain safety measures and ordains that two wheeled motorcycle is to be plied with only one pillion rider but prevailing Indian conditions are not unknown to all of us that at times an incumbent passenger has no option but to travel, on account of exigencies, emergencies, or paucity of transport, by accepting whatever transport is readily available. The scarcity of transport vehicles in rural areas has created a situation where often two wheeled motorbikes are plied with more than one pillion rider. It is really strange that how and in what manner the learned Tribunal has apportioned 30% responsibility to the deceased for occurrence of accident. On appreciation of facts, it is amply clear that it was head on collision between motorbike and the truck and therefore the truck, which was a heavy vehicle, ought to have been driven with greater care and responsibility. 21. Thus, on objective analysis of the findings and conclusions of the learned Tribunal on issue No. 1 & 3, I am not persuaded to concur with the said finding and am unable to hold that deceased has contributed for the occurrence of the accident in any manner. Accordingly, finding of the learned Tribunal in this behalf is reversed by holding that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Truck." 22. So far as the judgment in the case of Roshan Lal is concerned, as the said judgment has not taken into consideration the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Kastoori Devi, the said judgment cannot be relied on. 23. The judgment of Madras High Court again being contrary to the Division Bench judgment of this Court also cannot come to the aid of the respondent Insurance Company. 24. In view thereof, the finding of the Tribunal regarding contributory negligence of the driver of the motor cycle only on account of the fact that three persons were riding the motor cycle, without anything more indicating his negligence, cannot be sustained. 25. Besides the above, in so far as the case of Dalchand and Rekha is concerned, even if, the finding was recorded regarding contributory negligence of driver of the motor cycle, their claims could not have been reduced as qua them the same was a case of composite negligence as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.O. Anthony v. Karvarnan & Ors, (2008) 3 SCC 748 . On that count also the finding of the Tribunal cannot be sustained. 26. On that count also the finding of the Tribunal cannot be sustained. 26. So far as the submissions of Insurance Company regarding quantum of compensation is concerned, admittedly no appeal against the award impugned has been filed by the Insurance Company questioning the quantum of compensation and, as such, in absence thereof and the fact that the claimants are not questioning the quantum, the quantum of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal does not call for any interference. Consequently, the appeals are allowed. The award impugned passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that along with the owner & driver of the vehicle, the respondent New India Assurance Company, the insurer of the Jeep, would also be liable for payment of compensation to the claimants. The finding of the Tribunal regarding contributory negligence is set aside and, therefore, 30% deduction made by the Tribunal from compensation awarded also stands set aside. 27. The claimants would be entitled to the entire compensation as awarded, which should be paid by the New India Assurance Company within a period of six weeks. 28. If any amount has been deposited by the owner pursuant to the award and/or for the purpose of filing of the present appeals, the said amount shall also be refunded to the owner by the New India Assurance Company Ltd. No order as to costs.