JUDGMENT : P.G.M. PATIL, J. 1. Insurer being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 09.06.2009 passed in MVC No.79/2004 by the District and Sessions Judge and Member MACT, Gadag has filed this appeal. 2. The case of the claimant before the tribunal is that on 19.04.2004 at about 10 a.m. While he was coming as a pillion rider on a bicycle ridden by his son from Korlahalli side towards Mundaragi side on the correct side of the road, the of fending mini door tempo. i.e Matador Van KA 26/3513 came in a high speed, rashly and negligently from Mundaragi side to Korlhalli side and dashed against the bicycle and as a result he sustained injuries. No injuries were caused to his son. He was shifted to District Hospital, Gadag and after first aid he was shifted to KIMS, Hubli, where he spent huge amount. Accident took place because of the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the of fending mini door van. Respondents are jointly and several lyliable to pay the compensation amount. Therefore, he claimed compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- against the owner and insurer of the of fending vehicle. 3. In pursuance to the notice, the respondent No. 2 appeared before the tribunal. Respondent No.2 filed the written statement contending that the driver on the wheels had no valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. His liability is subject to the production of valid and legal RC, FC and driving license and even otherwise, compensation sought is excessive and without any legal basis. Therefore, respondent No.2 is not liable to pay any compensation. 4. Respondent No.1 remained absent and was placed Ex-parte. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the tribunal framed issues. In support of his claim petition, the claimant has got examined himself as PWs.1 and one witness, and got marked 24 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.24. Per contra, the respondent No.2 Insurance Company has not produced any oral documentary evidence. The learned member of the tribunal after hearing both the parties, passed the judgment, awarding compensation of Rs.2,12,640/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Further the tribunal has directed respondent No.2 to deposit the compensation amount and also reserved liberty to him to recover the same from respondent No.1 the owner of the vehicle. 6. Further the tribunal has directed respondent No.2 to deposit the compensation amount and also reserved liberty to him to recover the same from respondent No.1 the owner of the vehicle. 6. The insurer being aggrieved by the impugned judgment has filed this appeal on the grounds that driver of the transport vehicle involved in the accident was not having valid driving license to drive the said vehicle and that he was having license to drive LMV. Therefore, the tribunal ought to have fixed the liability on the owner and not on the insurer. Further, the disability considered by tribunal is erroneous. 7. Heard the arguments of the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 8. The short question which arises for consideration in this appeal is, whether the appellant insurer has made out grounds to set aside the liability saddled against him and to reduce the compensation awarded by the tribunal. 9. The main contention of the appellant insurer is that the driver of the of fending vehicle had no valid and effective driving license to drive the transport category vehicle i .e. goods carrier involved in the accident and that he was having valid driving license to dive LMV. Therefore, there is breach of policy condition. Hence, Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the insured. 10. The learned counsel for the insurer submits that the driver of the of fending vehicle had valid driving license to drive LMV as stated in para 3 of the grounds of the appeal memo. The insurer has also not produced any oral or documentary evidence before the tribunal nor proved the said contention. Moreover, now this ground is not available to the appellant insurer in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mukund Dewangan V. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2017) AIR SC 3668. In view of the said decision the driver having valid driving license to drive LMV need not obtain a special endorsement for the purpose of driving LMV transport vehicle or passenger vehicle. 11. Admittedly, in the present case, driver of the of fending vehicle had valid driving license to drive LMV and the vehicle involved in the accident is also LMV namely Mini door Tempo. 11. Admittedly, in the present case, driver of the of fending vehicle had valid driving license to drive LMV and the vehicle involved in the accident is also LMV namely Mini door Tempo. Therefore, in view of the decision referred supra, the contention of the insurer that the driver of the of fending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving license cannot be accepted. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be rejected on this ground. 12. Another contention raised by the insurer is that the tribunal has erroneously accepted the permanent disability of the claimant at 34%. The claimant had got examined Dr.Vishwesh Shirol, PW.2 he has issued disability certificate in respect of claimant. Though he is not a treated doctor he being an orthopedic surgeon, he has assessed physical disability of the claimant at 34% of the whole body. In the cross examination he has stated that the petitioner had undergone operation of open reduction and internal fixation in the hospital. He denied that he is deposing false hood that in case of open reduction and internal fixation, there would be no scope of mall-union. He has not admitted that the restriction could be removed by adopting orthoscopy. The percentage of disability is 34% to the whole body. There is no reason to discard the evidence of this witness. Further, PW.2 has stated in the chief examination that the he has assessed the disability of the claimant on the basis of the pain, limping and agony, deformity of right elbow and stiffness of right hip. Under these circumstances, it cannot be held that the tribunal has erroneously considered the permanent disability of the petitioner at 34% of the whole body. No other grounds are urged to interfere with the impugned judgment. Under these circumstances, this Court holds that the appellant insurer has not made out any grounds to set aside the liability saddled against him to reduce the compensation. It is seen from the record that the tribunal proceeded to hold that the liability is joint and several on respondent Nos.1 and 2. However, respondent No.2 was directed to deposit the compensation awarded with liberty to recover the same from respondent No.1. Hence, the order of tribunal to this extent is liable to be set aside. It is seen from the record that the tribunal proceeded to hold that the liability is joint and several on respondent Nos.1 and 2. However, respondent No.2 was directed to deposit the compensation awarded with liberty to recover the same from respondent No.1. Hence, the order of tribunal to this extent is liable to be set aside. Both respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and several lyliable to pay the compensation awarded to the claimant, respondent No.2 being the insurer has to be directed to deposit the compensation amount. The point for consideration is answered accordingly. In the result, this Court proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal filed by the insurer is hereby dismissed. Appellant insurer is directed to satisfy the award. The amount of compensation deposited by the insurer shall be transmitted to the concerned tribunal forthwith. Send the records to the concerned tribunal.