JUDGMENT : B.V. Nagarathna, J. These appeals are listed for orders. They have been remanded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by judgment dated 30.11.2017 passed in Civil Appeal Nos.20025-20028 of 2017 arising out of S.L.P.(Civil) Nos.887-890 of 2013. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while setting aside the judgments of this Court has directed for consideration of the case in light of the recent judgment in Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2017) AIR SC 3668 (Mukund Dewangan). In the circumstances, we have heard learned counsel for the appellant - insurer and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record as well as the original record. 2. M.F.A. No.444 of 2008 and M.F.A. No.446 of 2008 are filed by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited appellant, assailing the judgment and awards of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Kadur (hereinafter referred to as, 'Tribunal', for the sake of brevity) in M.V.C. No.61 of 2005 and M.V.C. No.62 of 2005 dated 04.10.2007 on the question of liability. While M.F.A. Crob. No.129 of 2008 is filed by the claimants as against M.F.A. No.446 of 2008 which has been de-linked as the counsel is absent. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to, in terms of their status before the Tribunal. 4. The claimants filed two claim petitions in M.V.C. No.61 of 2005 and M.V.C. No.62 of 2005 before the Tribunal. M.V.C. No.61 of 2005 was filed by the mother of the minor child Nandini, aged about 11 years, while M.V.C. No.62 of 2005 was filed by the legal heirs of deceased B.Nagarajuu. Both Nandini as well as Nagarajuu died in a road traffic accident that occurred on 03.02.2005. On the fateful day, B. Nagarajuu and his daughter, Nandini and others were traveling in Santro car bearing Reg. No.KA- 05/Z-1369 from Bengaluru to Shimoga. The driver of the car on the said day was A.S. Parthasarthi. They were proceeding from Banavara towards Kadur on National Highway-206. At that time, a Canter Van bearing Reg. No.KA-34/A-6 was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner from the opposite side endangering human life and dashed against the car. As a result, Nandini and her father B. Nagarajuu sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. They were proceeding from Banavara towards Kadur on National Highway-206. At that time, a Canter Van bearing Reg. No.KA-34/A-6 was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner from the opposite side endangering human life and dashed against the car. As a result, Nandini and her father B. Nagarajuu sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. According to the claimant in M.V.C. No.61 of 2005, who is none other than the mother of the deceased Nandini, she was about 11 years old, a brilliant student and studying in V standard. Therefore, the mother filed the claim petition seeking compensation on account of the death of her daughter. 5. M.V.C. No.62 of 2005 was filed by the widow, daughter and parents of deceased Nagarajuu seeking compensation on account of the death of Nagaraju. The claimants contended that deceased was working as a Senior Manager in Punjab National Bank, Bengaluru; earning salary of Rs.26,000/- per month; that they were all depending on his earnings; that they had lost the bread earner of the family, and therefore, sought compensation on various heads. 6. In response to the claim petitions, respondent No.3 i.e., appellant herein appeared and denied the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the driver of the canter vehicle, which was insured by it, was not holding a valid and effective driving licence, that there was a breach of the terms and conditions of the policy. Therefore, respondent No.3 (appellant herein) was not liable to satisfy the award. Therefore, the insurance company (appellant herein) sought dismissal of the claim petition. 7. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues in the respective claim petitions : M.V.C. No.61 of 2005 : 1. Whether the petitioner proves that, on 03.02.2005 at about 11.30 a.m., when deceased Nagaraju and his daughter Nandini were coming in Santro car belonging to the friend of deceased Nagaraju, bearing No.KA-05/Z-1369 from Bengaluru to Shimoga, near Anchechomanahally Gate on NH-206, at that time, the Canter Van bearing Reg. No.KA-34/A-6 driven by the 1st respondent, came in a rash and negligent manner with excessive speed and dashed against the Santro Car, due to which deceased Nagaraju and his daughter Nandini and the driver of the said car succumbed to the accidental injuries? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation from respondent Nos.1 to 4? No.KA-34/A-6 driven by the 1st respondent, came in a rash and negligent manner with excessive speed and dashed against the Santro Car, due to which deceased Nagaraju and his daughter Nandini and the driver of the said car succumbed to the accidental injuries? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation from respondent Nos.1 to 4? If so, at what rate? 3. What decree or order? M.V.C. No.62 of 2005 : 1. Whether the petitioners prove that, on 03.02.2005 at about 11.30 a.m., when deceased Nagaraju and his daughter Nandini were coming in Santro car belonging to the friend of deceased Nagaraju, bearing No.KA-05/Z-1369 from Bengaluru to Shimoga, near Anchechomanahally Gate on NH-206, at that time, the Canter Van bearing Reg. No.KA-34/A-6 driven by the 1st respondent, came in a rash and negligent manner with excessive speed and dashed against the Santro Car, due to which said Nagaraju, his daughter Nandini and the driver of the said car succumbed to the accidental injuries? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation from respondent Nos.1 to 4? If so, at what rate? 3. What decree or order? 8. In support of their case, the claimants examined Smt. Asha Rani Holla, the mother of the minor child Nandini and widow of Nagaraju as P.W.1 and one Mallappa as P.W.2. The claimants produced 14 documents, which were marked as Exs.P-1 to P-14. On behalf of the respondents Exs.D-1 to D-5 were marked. 9. On the basis of the evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,35,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the claim petition till deposit in M.V.C. No.61 of 2005 and a sum of Rs.17,46,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the claim petition till deposit in M.V.C. No.62 of 2005. The Tribunal while ordering the above answered issue Nos.1 and 2 in both the cases partly in the affirmative and accordingly awarded the compensation. The Tribunal held the driver of the Canter Van to be negligent to an extent of 75%, while the driver of the Santro car was negligent to an extent of 25% and accordingly the aforesaid compensation was fastened in the said ratio by the Tribunal. The Tribunal held the driver of the Canter Van to be negligent to an extent of 75%, while the driver of the Santro car was negligent to an extent of 25% and accordingly the aforesaid compensation was fastened in the said ratio by the Tribunal. Being aggrieved by the judgment and awards of the Tribunal fastening liability on the insurer of the Canter Van and by directing it to satisfy the award to an extent of 75% despite there being a breach of terms and conditions of the policy, the insurance company has preferred these appeals seeking enhancement of compensation. M.F.A. Crob. No.129 of 2009 is filed in M.F.A. No.446 of 2008 by the claimants in M.V.C. No.62 of 2005 which is de-linked. 10. In the appeals filed by the insurance company, the main contention is that the driver of the Canter Van did not possess a valid and effective driving licence to drive the said vehicle on the fateful day or he was not duly licenced, and therefore, there being a breach of the terms and conditions of the policy, the liability could not have been fastened on the insurer to indemnify the insured. This Court by its judgment dated 28.11.2011 heard both the appeals together, directed the insurance company to pay the compensation to the claimants and to initiate appropriate proceedings to recover the same from the owner and driver of the offending Canter Van. In M.F.A. Crob., compensation was enhanced and the same was also allowed in part. Being aggrieved by the judgment and direction of this Court, permitting the insurance company to pay and recover the compensation by executing the award against the owner and driver of Canter Van, Special Leave Petitions were preferred before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which were admitted and converted into Civil Appeals by judgment dated 30.11.2017. The Civil Appeals were allowed. The judgment passed by this Court in both the appeals were set aside and the matter was remanded to this Court for a fresh consideration. In the circumstances, these appeals and cross-objection have been listed for orders but the cross-objection has been de-linked. With the consent of learned counsel on both sides, the appeals have been heard finally and are disposed of by this common judgment. 11. In the circumstances, these appeals and cross-objection have been listed for orders but the cross-objection has been de-linked. With the consent of learned counsel on both sides, the appeals have been heard finally and are disposed of by this common judgment. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant - insurer contended that the grievance of the appellant vis-a-vis, the judgment of the Tribunal is not with regard to the apportionment of liability to an extent of 75% on the driver and owner of the Canter Van, but with regard to there being no valid and effective driving licence being held by the driver of the Canter Van (insured vehicle) on the date of the accident i.e., 03.02.2005. He drew our attention to Ex.R-2 the Driving Licence Extract of Sri C. Ravi, the driver of the Canter Van to contend that he had a driving licence to drive a light motor vehicle with effect from 04.01.1999 to 03.01.2019 (Non-Transport) and he had a transport licence for the period 08.01.2004 to 07.01.2007. Though there was a transport licence held by the driver of the Canter Van, it did not apply to the offending vehicle, namely, the Canter Van which is a "medium goods vehicle". That a "light motor vehicle" is defined in Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', for the sake of brevity) and the "medium goods vehicle" is defined under Section 2(23) of the Act, which means any goods carriage other than a light motor vehicle or a heavy goods vehicle. The definition of "heavy goods vehicle" is in Section 2(16) of the Act. That the unladen weight of the Canter Van was not exceeding 12,000 kgs., but it was exceeding 7,500 kgs. It was definitely not a "light motor vehicle" as the Canter Van is a Swaraj Mazda vehicle and hence the Tribunal could not have fastened liability to an extent of 75% on the insurer of the Canter Van, namely, the appellant herein. That this Court rightly set aside the said direction and directed pay and recovery by directing the appellant herein to satisfy the award and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has set aside the said judgment with a further direction to consider the case in the light of Mukund Dewangan (supra). 12. That this Court rightly set aside the said direction and directed pay and recovery by directing the appellant herein to satisfy the award and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has set aside the said judgment with a further direction to consider the case in the light of Mukund Dewangan (supra). 12. Learned counsel contended that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mukund Dewangan (supra) does not apply to the instant case as the controversy herein is not whether the driver of the Canter Van was possessing a transport endorsement or not, rather the controversy is whether he was duly licenced on the date of the accident. That the evidence on record especially Ex.R-2 would establish that he did not possess a valid driving licence to drive a medium goods vehicle. Hence, no liability could be fastened on the appellant herein. The appeals filed by the appellant herein may therefore be allowed without any reference to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as it does not apply to the facts of the present case. 13. Per contra, learned counsel for the owner of the "medium goods vehicle", namely, the Canter Van contended that Ex.R-2, the Driving Licence Extract has been produced by the appellant - insurer before the Tribunal. It shows that from 08.01.2004 to 07.01.2007 the driver of the vehicle did possess a transport endorsement. That means he had the eligibility and capacity to drive a transport vehicle. A transport vehicle need not be restricted to only a light motor vehicle. A transport vehicle could include a "medium goods vehicle" or a "heavy goods vehicle". That the Canter Van in the instant case was a medium goods vehicle. That having regard to Section 10 of the Act the expression, "transport vehicle" could include any class of transport vehicle and when once such a transport endorsement is possessed by the driver of a vehicle, he is eligible and entitled to drive the transport vehicle and particularly in the instant case the Canter Van which is a "medium goods vehicle" and not a "heavy goods vehicle". Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in fastening liability on the appellant - insurer and that this Court ought not to have allowed the appeals filed by the appellant insurer by directing pay and recovery. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in fastening liability on the appellant - insurer and that this Court ought not to have allowed the appeals filed by the appellant insurer by directing pay and recovery. Hence, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has set aside the judgment passed by this Court and has remanded the matter. This Court may confirm the judgment and awards of the Tribunal. 14. Having heard the learned counsel for respective parties, the following points would arise for our consideration : 1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in fastening liability on the appellant -insurer to satisfy the award in respect of 75% having regard to the fact that the apportionment of negligence on the driver of the Canter Van, offending vehicle in question was to that extent? 2. What order? 15. The claimants have established that on 03.02.2005 at about 11.30 a.m., B. Nagaraju along with his daughter, Nandini were proceeding in Santro Car bearing Registration No.KA-05/Z-1369 from Bangalore to Shimoga. When the car was on NH-206, proceeding towards Kadur, the Canter Van bearing registration No.KA18 34/A-6 was driven by the driver, C.Ravi in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Santro Car. As a result of the impact, both Nagaraju and his daughter Nandini died on the spot. With regard to apportionment of negligence also, there is no controversy in these appeals, as the Tribunal held that the driver of the Canter Van was negligent to an extent of 75%, while the driver of the Santro Car was negligent to an extent of 25%. Accordingly, liability has been fastened on the appellant insurance company. The controversy however is with regard to the liability of the appellant-insurer to satisfy the award. 16. The detailed narration of facts and contentions would not require reiteration except highlighting that the appellant-insurer contends that the driver of the Canter Van was not duly licenced on the date of the accident. In this regard, Ex.D2 has been produced. On perusal of the same, it is noted that the driver of the Canter Van had licence to drive a light motor vehicle w.e.f. 04.01.1999 up to 03.01.2019. It was for a period of twenty years and obviously, a non-transport licence. As far as the transport licence is concerned, the validity of the licence was from 08.01.2004 to 07.01.2007. The accident occurred on 03.02.2005. It was for a period of twenty years and obviously, a non-transport licence. As far as the transport licence is concerned, the validity of the licence was from 08.01.2004 to 07.01.2007. The accident occurred on 03.02.2005. Contention of learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company is that the said transport licence was also in respect of the light motor vehicle. As such, the said fact has not been established, even on a close perusal of Ex.D2. 17. In fact, the expression "transport vehicle" was inserted to the Act by way of an amendment made to Section 10 of the Act w.e.f. 14.11.1994. The expressions 'medium goods vehicle', 'medium passenger motor vehicle', 'heavy goods vehicle', 'heavy passenger motor vehicle', which were found in clause 8(2) (d) (e) (ei) and (eii) of the Motor vehicles Act, 1939 and even when the Act was enforced in Section 10(2) was amended to incorporate only one omnibus clause of transport vehicles as, 'transport vehicle'. Such a transport vehicle would include 'medium goods vehicle' as well as 'heavy goods vehicle'. Even a light motor vehicle could also be a transport vehicle, but the expression 'light motor vehicle' is defined by independent clause. The Canter Van in the instant case is a medium goods vehicle. The driver of the vehicle had a transport endorsement to drive the said vehicle w.e.f. 08.01.2004 to 07.01.2007. In the circumstances, it has to be held that the driver of the offending vehicle was duly licenced as on the date of the accident i.e., 03.02.2005. 18. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in fastening the liability on the insurer of the Canter Van. However, this Court by its earlier judgment has set aside the said direction and had permitted 'pay and recovery', which of course has been set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also directed that these appeals may be considered in light of its judgment in Mukund Dewangan. That is a judgment which was rendered on a reference and the main question involved was, whether the driver who is having a licence to drive light motor vehicle can drive transport vehicle of that class is required additionally to obtain an endorsement to drive the transport vehicle. Considering there being contrary decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the matter was referred to a larger bench comprising of three Hon'ble Judges. Considering there being contrary decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the matter was referred to a larger bench comprising of three Hon'ble Judges. While answering the said reference at paragraph- 46, it is held that Section 10 of the Act requires a driver to hold the licence with respect to the class of vehicles and not with respect to 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. That Section 10(2)(e) speaks about 'transport vehicle' which 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). Therefore, the effect of amendment made by virtue of Act No.54 of 1994 w.e.f. 14.11.1994 while substituting clause (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 10(2)(h) come within the expression 'transport vehicle' as substituted in Section 10(2)(e). The aforesaid judgment is squarely applicable to the instant cases. 19. Further, on the controversy which specifically arose in that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that for driving a transport vehicle of the class of light motor vehicle, no requirement to obtain a separate endorsement to drive a transport vehicle was necessary and if a driver was holding a licence to drive light motor vehicle, he could drive 'transport vehicle' of such class without obtaining an endorsement to that effect. 20. In the circumstances, it is held that the Tribunal was justified in fastening the liability on the insurer and to satisfy the award to an extent of 75%, as there was no breach of the terms and conditions of the policy. Hence, the aforesaid point is answered against the appellant-insurer. 21. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Insurance company are dismissed. The amount, if any, in deposit be transmitted to the Tribunal. 22. Parties to bear their respective costs.