JUDGMENT : Mohammad Nawaz, J. Both these appeals are directed against the Judgment and Award dated 10.03.2011 passed by the MACT., Court of Small Causes at Bengaluru in MVC Nos.3311/2010 and 3312/2010, whereby the Tribunal was pleased to partly allow the claim petitions filed by the respective claimants and awarded compensation to the respective claimants and held that respondent Nos.1 and 2 therein are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. The brief facts of the case are that; On 14.05.2010 at about 10.35 P.m., the petitioner in MVC No.3311/2010 was proceeding in a TATA Mobile vehicle bearing reg. No.KA-03/3816 on Banaswadi main road and the driver of the said vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle bearing reg. No.KA-51/E-440 which was ridden by the deceased Debratha Das in MVC No.3312/2010. Due to the said impact, the petitioner in MVC No.3311/2010 sustained grievous injuries and the rider of the motorcycle [deceased] also sustained grievous injuries and later succumbed to the said injuries at NIMHANS., Bengaluru. The petitioner/claimant in MVC No.3311/2010 was shifted to Chaya Hospital, OMBR Layout, Bengaluru and took treatment for the injuries suffered by him. Before the Tribunal, respective claim petitions came to be filed. MVC No.3311/2010 was filed by the injured claimant and MVC No.3312/2010 was filed by the parents and the brother of deceased. The Tribunal clubbed both the petitions. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the claimants P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.P1 to 25 were marked in evidence. On behalf of the respondents R.W.1 was examined and Exs.R1 and 2 came to be marked. The Tribunal after considering the evidence and material on record, awarded a compensation of Rs.2,22,400/- in MVC No.3311/2010 together with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. [excluding future medical expenses] and a compensation of Rs.8,22,000/- in MVC No.3312/2010 together with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till date of deposit of compensation amount. 4. 4. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company is that the findings recorded by the Tribunal on the point of negligence is not proper as the Tribunal has failed to consider that there is contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, who was riding the two-wheeler. He further submits that the Tribunal grossly erred in saddling the liability on the appellant/Insurer when admittedly the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a driving licence to drive a transport vehicle except to drive LMV [NT]. He contends that under Section 2(10) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity]. A 'driving licence' means the licence issued by a competent authority under Chapter II authorizing the person specified therein to drive, otherwise than as a learner, a motor vehicle of any specified class or description and under Section 2(21) of the Act a 'light motor vehicle' means a transport vehicle or a omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road-roller, the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceeds 7,500 kilograms. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that though the definition of 'light motor vehicle' includes a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or roadroller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed 7,500 kilograms, however, to drive such vehicle, authorizing the person specified therein to drive otherwise than as a learner, a motor vehicle or a motor vehicle of any specified class or description is necessary. It is further contended that the definition of 'motor car' as provided under Section 2(26) of the Act does not include category of transport vehicle. The learned counsel therefore contends that a person holding a driving licence to drive a 'light motor vehicle' [non transport] is not entitled to drive a transport vehicle and therefore, there is violation of conditions of the policy, hence, the Tribunal was not justified in fastening the liability on the Insurer and accordingly seeks to allow the appeal filed by the Insurance Company. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would justify the impugned Judgment and Award passed by the Tribunal and contends that the Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence has come to the conclusion that the driver of the offending vehicle was rash and negligent in causing the accident on the basis of the material on record. He further contends that the Tribunal was also justified in fastening the liability on the insurer of the vehicle as there was a valid insurance policy at the time of accident and the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a valid driving licence to drive the said vehicle. Accordingly, he seeks to dismiss the appeals. 5. It is the case of the claimants that on 14.05.2010 at about 10.35 p.m. when the injured/claimant in MVC No.3311/2010 was proceeding in a TATA Mobile vehicle bearing reg. No.KA-03/3816 on Banaswadi main road, the driver of the said vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against a motorcycle bearing reg. No.KA-51/E-440, on account of which the petitioner in MVC NO.3311/2010 sustained grievous injuries and the rider of the motorcycle also sustained grievous injuries and subsequently, he succumbed to the injuries. 6. Ex.P1 is the FIR., Ex.P2 is the spot panchanama, Ex.P3 is the IMV Report, Ex.P4 is the sketch and Ex.P7 is the charge-sheet. 7. The Tribunal considering the oral and documentary evidence produced by the claimants held that the accident occurred on account of the actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the TATA mobile vehicle. The aforesaid documents goes to show that a case was registered against the driver of the vehicle bearing reg. No.KA-03/3816 and charge-sheet was also filed. The same is not denied. On the other hand, the respondent has not adduced the evidence of the driver of the TATA mobile vehicle. There is no contra evidence to show that the accident has taken place due to the rash or negligent act of the deceased. In that view of the matter, the contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company that the accident has occurred on account of the fault of the deceased cannot be accepted. 8. There is no contra evidence to show that the accident has taken place due to the rash or negligent act of the deceased. In that view of the matter, the contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company that the accident has occurred on account of the fault of the deceased cannot be accepted. 8. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company that the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a driving licence to drive LMV [NT] and therefore, he was not authorized to drive the vehicle, which was involved in the accident, which is a transport vehicle. In this regard, it is relevant to rely on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court AIR 2017 663 in the case of MUKUND DEWANGAN VS. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED. Para 46 of the said decision reads as under: "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 postamended 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. (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." 9. It is not in dispute that the gross weight/unladen weight of the vehicle in question does not exceed 7,500 kilograms. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that in such a case there is no requirement to obtain separate endorsement to drive a 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. 10. Learned counsel, Sri. O.Mahesh would contend that the Hon'ble Apex Court in M/S. BAJAJ ALLIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. RAMBHA DEVI & ORS., Civil Appeal No.841/2018, after noticing certain distinct provisions pertaining specifically to transport vehicles such as Sections 4 (1), 4 (2), 7, 14, 14 (2) (a) and Rules 5, 31 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 has referred the decision rendered in MUKUND DEWANGAN'S CASE [supra] to a larger bench and therefore submits that the law laid down in MUKUND DEWANGAN'S CASE [supra] cannot be pressed into service. 11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ASHOK SADARANGANI AND ANOTHER Vs. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS, (2012) 11 SCC 321 at para 29, has observed a under: "29. As was indicated in Harbhajan Singh case, (2009) 13 SCC 608 , the pendency of a reference to a larger Bench, does not mean that all other proceedings involving the same issue would remain stayed till a decision was rendered in the reference. The reference made in Gian Singh case, 2010 (15) SC 118 need not, therefore, detain us. Till such time as the decisions cited at the Bar are not modified or altered in any way, they continue to hold the field." 12. It is specifically held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the pendency of a reference to a larger Bench, does not mean that all other proceedings involving the same issue would remain stayed till a decision was rendered in the reference. In view of the above dictum, it cannot be said that the insurer of the offending vehicle is not liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. The insurer is therefore held liable to pay the compensation. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER Both the appeals are dismissed. The amount in deposit before this Court shall be transmitted to the Tribunal.