ORDER : 1. This appeal is directed against judgment & award dated 20.03.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shahpura, District – Bhilwara (‘the Tribunal’), whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,49,940/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from the date of application i.e. 14.10.2010, however, the respondent No.2-Insurance Company has been exonerated from payment of compensation. 2. The application was filed by the claimant for the injuries suffered by him on account of accident, which occurred on 28.04.2010. It was alleged that Tempo No.RJ-36-GA-0830 was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, which resulted in the accident. 3. The owner and driver put in appearance and alleged that the injured himself was negligent. Further plea was taken that the Insurer of the vehicle was liable for payment of compensation. 4. The Insurance Company puts in appearance and contested its liability on the ground that the driver of the Tempo was not in possession of a valid driving licence. 5. 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 Tempo. On the plea raised by the Insurance Company, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the driver had licence to driver ‘light motor vehicle’, however as the vehicle in question was ‘light transport vehicle’, he was not authorized to drive the said vehicle and, consequently, was not in possession of a valid driving licence and exonerated the Insurance Company. A compensation to the tune of Rs.2,49,940/- was assessed, which was directed to be paid by the owner and driver of the Tempo. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the issue raised in the present appeal is squarely covered by judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., (2017) 14 SCC 663 , wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that a person holding licence to driver ‘light motor vehicle’, was entitled to drive ‘light transport vehicle’ as well and, therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal to the extent that it has exonerated the Insurance Company, is liable to be set aside. 7. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submitted that though the issue apparently is covered, however, the judgment in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra), is still at large as in the case of Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi & Ors., Civil Appeal No.841/2018, a two judges’ Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court has referred the matter to a three judges Bench for considering the issue raised therein and, therefore, the judgment in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra) for the present case, cannot be relied on by the appellants. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent-claimant submitted that the claimant cannot be left high & dry on account of the fact that the matter was pending before Hon’ble Supreme Court once again. 9. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 10. It is not in dispute that the driver was in possession of driving licence authorized to drive ‘light motor vehicle’ and the Tempo in question was a ‘light transport vehicle’. 11. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra), 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. 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. 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, ‘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.” 12. The circumstances of the present case are covered by judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra). 13. So far as the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company regarding the pendency of the issue again before a three judges’ Bench in the case of Rambha Devi (supra) is concerned, the fact that the matter is pending cannot detain the Court from deciding the issue based on the judgment, which is presently holding the field, specially in view of the fact that for the present, the appellants alone, contrary to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, cannot be directed to make payment and as the Insurance Company has been exonerated, the result would be that the claimant would be left without any compensation. 14. In view of the above circumstances, following the judgment in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra), the appeal deserves to be accepted. 15. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellants is allowed. 14. In view of the above circumstances, following the judgment in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra), the appeal deserves to be accepted. 15. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellants is allowed. The judgment & award dated 20.03.2015 is modified to the extent that alongwith the appellant-owner & driver of the Tempo, the Insurance Company would also be liable. The payment of compensation in terms of the award shall be made by the Insurance Company to the claimant within a period of four weeks.