ORDER : The petitioner-insurer is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the award passed by the Permanent Lok-Adalath, Belgaum dated 11.08.2011 in M.V.C.No.68/2009. 2. The respondent No.1 herein/claimant filed M.V.C.No.68/2009 claiming compensation for the injuries suffered in a road traffic accident occurred on 06.11.2007. It is the case of the claimant that on 06.11.2007 when the first respondent was crossing the road, Tempo bearing Reg.No.KA-22/A-3248 came with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner. Due to which the respondent No.1 suffered grievous injuries. The respondent No.1 filed claim petition under Section 22-C(1) of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 before the Permanent Lok-Adalath at Belgaum. On service of notice, the respondent-Insurance Company filed its objections contending that the driver of the vehicle had no valid and effective driving license to drive the tempo. After recording the evidence and after hearing the parties the Permanent Lok-Adalath passed award in a sum of Rs.62,700/-in favour of the claimant/respondent No.1 herein with liberty to the petitioner insurer to recover the amount from the owner and the driver of the vehicle. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition. 3. The only ground urged in the writ petition is that the driver of the vehicle was not holding valid and effective license as on the date of the accident and as such fastening the liability on the insurer is wholly erroneous. It is also contended that the Permanent Lok-Adalath could not have directed for pay and recovery. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1/claimant would submit that the driver of the vehicle had LMV license and there was no endorsement for driving transport vehicle. Further, he contends that the Permanent Lok-Adalath has rightly directed the insurer to pay the amount and has granted liberty to recover the same from its owner and driver of the vehicle. He relies upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund De wang an Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in (2017) 14 SCC 663 to contend that the LMV license is sufficient and there is no need of any endorsement to drive heavy motor vehicle. He relies on para 46 of the said judgment. He relies upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund De wang an Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in (2017) 14 SCC 663 to contend that the LMV license is sufficient and there is no need of any endorsement to drive heavy motor vehicle. He relies on para 46 of the said judgment. He also relies upon the judgment reported in 2018 5 SCC 762 in the case of Shivawwa and Another Vs. Branch Manager, National India Insurance Company Limited and Another to contend that it is permissible to order for pay and recovery in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 4. Having heard the learned counsels and on perusal of the entire material on record, I am of the view that the Permanent Lok-Adalath has neither committed any error nor the order is perverse nor erroneous. The only contention raised by the Insurance Company is that the driver of the vehicle had no valid and effective driving license as on the date of the accident to drive the vehicle in question. Admittedly, the driver had LMV non-transport license which is marked as Ex.R.2. Further, the driver also had learner license for driving heavy transport vehicle with effect from 11.06.2007 to 10.12.2007. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund De wangan (referred supra) has made it clear that the driver who is holding license to drive LMV can also drive transport vehicle. The relevant portion of the said decision reads as follows: “55. Sections 10(2) (a) to (j) lay down the classes of vehicles to be driven, not a specific kind of motor vehicles in that class. If a vehicle falls into any of the categories, a licence-holder holding licence to drive the class of vehicle can drive all vehicles of that particular class. No separate endorsement is to be obtained nor provided, if the vehicle falls in any of the particular classes of section 10(2). If a vehicle falls into any of the categories, a licence-holder holding licence to drive the class of vehicle can drive all vehicles of that particular class. No separate endorsement is to be obtained nor provided, if the vehicle falls in any of the particular classes of section 10(2). This Court has rightly observed in Nagashetty (supra) that in case submission to the contrary is accepted, then every time an owner of a private car, who has a licence to drive a light motor vehicle, attaches a roof carrier to his car or a trailer to his car and carries goods thereon, the light motor vehicle would become a transport vehicle and the owner would be deemed to have no licence to drive that vehicle. It would lead to absurd results. Merely because a trailer is added either to a tractor or to a motor vehicle it by itself does not mean that driver ceased to have valid driving licence. In our considered opinion, even if such a vehicle is treated as transport vehicle of the light motor vehicle class, legal position would not change and driver would still have a valid driving licence to drive transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class, whether it is a transport vehicle or a private car/tractor attached with trolley or used for carrying goods in the form of transport vehicle. The ultimate conclusion in Nagashetty (supra) is correct, however, for the reasons as explained by us. 56. xxxxx 57. xxxxx 58. “Transport vehicle” has been defined in section 2(47) of the Act, to mean a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle. “Public service vehicle” has been defined in Section 2(35) to mean any motor vehicle used or adapted to be used for the carriage of passengers for hire or re ward and includes a maxi cab, a motor cab, contract carriage, and stage carriage. “Goods carriage” which is also a transport vehicle is defined in Section 2(14) to mean a motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use solely for the carriage of goods, or any motor vehicle not so constructed or adapted when used for the carriage of goods. “Goods carriage” which is also a transport vehicle is defined in Section 2(14) to mean a motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use solely for the carriage of goods, or any motor vehicle not so constructed or adapted when used for the carriage of goods. It was rightly submitted that a person holding licence to drive light motor vehicle registered for private use, who is driving a similar vehicle which is registered or insured, for the purpose of carrying passengers for hire or re ward, would not require an endorsement as to drive a transport vehicle, as the same is not contemplated by the provisions of the Act. It was also rightly contended that there are several vehicles which can be used for private use as well as for carrying passengers for hire or re ward. When a driver is authorised to drive a vehicle, he can drive it irrespective of the fact whether it is used for a private purpose or for purpose of hire or reward or for carrying the goods in the said vehicle. It is what is intended by the provision of the Act, and the Amendment Act 54 of 1994. 59. 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 other wise 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. 60. Thus we answer the questions which are ref erred to us thus: 60.1. “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 Sections 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 of 1994. 60.2. 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 of 1994 and 28-3-2001 in the form. 60.3. The effect of the amendment made by virtue of Act No.54 of 1994 w.e.f . A licence issued under section 10(2)(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54 of 1994 and 28-3-2001 in the form. 60.3. The effect of the amendment made by virtue of Act No.54 of 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. 60.4. 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. 61. In the light of aforesaid answer, let matters be placed for hearing on merits before the appropriate Bench.” 5. In view of the above decision, the contention of the petitioner would not merit any consideration. The next contention raised by the petitioner is that the Permanent Lok-Adalath could not have ordered for pay and recovery as the same is contrary to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Parvati Neni. The latest decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2018 5 SCC 762 (referred supra) has clarified position and has approved the Swaran Singh’s case reported in (2004) 3 SCC 297 . Para 13 of the said decision reads as follows: “13. Parvati Neni. The latest decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2018 5 SCC 762 (referred supra) has clarified position and has approved the Swaran Singh’s case reported in (2004) 3 SCC 297 . Para 13 of the said decision reads as follows: “13. Assuming for the sake of argument that the insurance company was not liable to pay compensation amount awarded to the claimants as the offending tractor was duly insured, the insurer would be still liable to pay the compensation amount in the first instance with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle owner (respondent No.2), in light of the exposition in the case of National Insurance Co. Vs. S warn Singh and Ors., (2004) 3 SCC 297 14 In paragraph 110 of the said decision, a three-Judge Bench of this Court observed thus: “110. The summary of our findings to the various issues as raised in these petitions are as follows: (i) Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 providing compulsory insurance of vehicles against third party risks is a social welfare legislation to extend relief by compensation to victims of accidents caused by use of motor vehicles. The provisions of compulsory insurance coverage of all vehicles are with this paramount object and the provisions of the Act have to be so interpreted as to effectuate the said object. (ii) Insurer is entitled to raise a defence in a claim petition filed under Section 163A or Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 inter alia in terms of Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the said Act. (iii) xxx (iv) The insurance companies are, however, with a vie w to avoid their liability must not only establish the available defence(s) raised in the said proceedings but must also establish 'breach' on the part of the owner of the vehicle; the burden of proof where for would be on them. (iii) xxx (iv) The insurance companies are, however, with a vie w to avoid their liability must not only establish the available defence(s) raised in the said proceedings but must also establish 'breach' on the part of the owner of the vehicle; the burden of proof where for would be on them. (v) xxx (vi) xxx (vii) xxx (viii) xxx (ix) xxx (x) Where on adjudication of the claim under the Act the tribunal arrives at a conclusion that the insurer has satisfactorily proved its defence in accordance with the provisions of Section 149(2) read with Sub-section (7), as interpreted by this Court above, the Tribunal can direct that the insurer is liable to be reimbursed by the insured for the compensation and other amounts which it has been compelled to pay to the third party under the award of the tribunal Such determination of claim by the Tribunal will be enforceable and the money found due to the insurer from the insured will be recoverable on a certificate issued by the tribunal to the Collector in the same manner under Section 174 of the Act as arrears of land revenue. The certificate will be issued for the 15 recovery as arrears of land revenue only if , as required by Sub-section (3) of Section 168 of the Act the insured fails to deposit the amount awarded in favour of the insurer within thirty days from the date of announcement of the award by the tribunal. (xi) The provisions contained in Subsection (4) with proviso thereunder and Sub-section (5) which are intended to cover specified contingencies mentioned therein to enable the insurer to recover amount paid under the contract of insurance on behalf of the insured can be taken recourse of by the Tribunal and be extended to claims and defences of insurer against insured by, relegating them to the remedy before, regular court in cases where on given facts and circumstances adjudication of their claims inter se might delay the adjudication of the claims of the victims.” (emphasis supplied) 6. Therefore, in the light of the above decisions and discussion made above, the writ petition is dismissed.