ORDER : Heard the parties. 2. This appeal arises out of Award/ Judgment dated 31.01.2014, passed by District Judge – IX – cum – M.A.C.T., Dhanbad in Title (M.V.) Suit No. 213 of 2008 whereby and whereunder an amount of Rs.8,38,198/- has been awarded in favour of the claimants after deducting ad-interim compensation of Rs.50,000/- which comes to Rs.7,88,198/-, with an interest of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the case till the date of payment and the same has been directed to be paid by the Insurance Company within a period of thirty days from the date of order. 3. Claim application was preferred under Section 166 of the M.V. Act by the plaintiffs/ claimants seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- with interest therein on account of death of Deepak Ram. The claimants happened to be wife and sons of deceased who died in a motor vehicle road accident which took place at 7:00 p.m. on 06.01.2008 at Dhanbad – Govindpur Main Road at some distance from ISM near the temple. The alleged accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the auto rickshaw bearing registration no. JH 10P 3201 by its driver in which deceased Deepak Ram was also boarded as a passengers. The said Auto in which deceased was travelling, dashed into a truck bearing no. BR 20G 0307 which was standing in a damaged condition in the side of the road, as a result of which deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to death. The deceased died leaving behind his wife Putul Devi and three sons who are plaintiffs/ claimants in this case. The deceased was the only earning member of the family and employee in BCCL as a sweeper and was getting salary of Rs.11,374/- per month. 4. The FIR being Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 14/08 for the offence under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code was lodged by co-passenger Mundrika Ram who had also sustained injuries. After investigation charge-sheet was filed and trial proceeded. 5. The claimants had also filed claim application under Section 140 of M.V. Act in which they received an ad-interim compensation of Rs.50,000/-. 6. The defendant no. After investigation charge-sheet was filed and trial proceeded. 5. The claimants had also filed claim application under Section 140 of M.V. Act in which they received an ad-interim compensation of Rs.50,000/-. 6. The defendant no. 1 (owner of the offending vehicle) – Golak Chand Mondal appeared and filed written statement claiming therein that the vehicle in question was insured with the national Insurance Company Ltd. and the policy was valid during the relevant period. The accident took place due to negligence on part of the deceased himself and defendant cannot be held responsible for the same. The liability, if any, falls upon the Insurance Company to pay compensation 7. The defendant no. 2 – The National Insurance Company Ltd. appeared and filed their written statements separately claiming interalia that driver of the Auto had no valid and effective driving license at the time of alleged accident. The owner of the vehicle did not produce entire documents including driving license, road permit, registration etc. failing which it would be presumed that it is a violation of policy. It has further been alleged that the amount of compensation is also on the higher side and against the provisions of law and suit is fit to be dismissed. 8. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal framed following issues: (i) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form? (ii) Whether the plaintiffs have valid cause of action for the present suit? (iii) Whether the deceased Deepak Ram died in a road accident as claimed by the plaintiffs? (iv) Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tempo bearing registration no. JH 10P 3201? (v) Whether there was any breach of contract of insurance between the defendant nos. 1 and 2? (vi) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief claimed? (vii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for any other relief or relief’s? 9. After framing of issues, plaintiffs as well as defendants adduced their oral and documentary evidences in support of their respective contention. The documents produced by them have also been marked and exhibited with the records. 10. After examining records of the case, learned Tribunal discussed the issues in details and claim application filed by the claimant has been allowed on contest against the defendants and decided the issues that claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs. The documents produced by them have also been marked and exhibited with the records. 10. After examining records of the case, learned Tribunal discussed the issues in details and claim application filed by the claimant has been allowed on contest against the defendants and decided the issues that claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs. 8,38,198 (Less Rs.50,000/- already received as ad-interim compensation in separate suit under Section 140 of M.V. Act) and directed the Insurance Company to pay the total amount of compensation awarded to the claimants under Section 166 of M.V. Act which comes to Rs.7,88,198/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the case till payment. The Insurance Company was further directed to pay the compensation amount to the plaintiffs within 30 days of the order. 11. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied by the Award/ Judgment dated 31.01.2014, passed by District Judge – IX – cum – M.A.C.T., Dhanbad in Title (M.V.) Suit No. 213 of 2008, the appellant – Insurance Company has preferred this appeal. 12. Mr. Amaresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company has assailed the impugned Judgment mainly on the ground that the same suffers from illegality and infirmity. Learned counsel argues that the Insurance Company is not liable for making payment of the amount awarded in favour of the claimants rather it is owner who is liable for payment of the same. Learned counsel submits that illegally and wrongly without considering arguments raised in Court below and without going through the evidences the Tribunal has held the Insurance Company liable for the compensation. Learned counsel submits that driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid license. Meaning thereby, he may be having licence of driving LMV and HMV but he was not having licence for driving transport/ commercial vehicle and as such it cannot be considered that driver was having valid licence. Learned counsel places reliance upon a Judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Angad Kol & Ors. and a copy of the same is produced before the Bench. Learned counsel places reliance upon a Judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Angad Kol & Ors. and a copy of the same is produced before the Bench. Referring to paragraph-8 of the said Judgment, learned counsel submits that admittedly driver did not possess license for driving transport/ commercial vehicle and as such the Insurance Company ought not have been saddled by the cost of Rs.7,88,198/- by way of compensation rather it was the owner who was liable to pay the alleged amount of compensation. Para-8 of the said Judgment is quoted as under “8. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter called as the Act) was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to motor vehicles. ‘Driving licence’ has been defined in Section 2(10) to mean the licence issued by a competent authority under Chapter II authorising the person specified therein to drive, otherwise than as a learner, a motor vehicle or a motor vehicle of any specified class or description. “Goods carriage” has been defined in Section 2(14) to mean any 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. The said Act also defines ‘heavy goods vehicle’, ‘heavy passenger motor vehicle’, ‘medium goods vehicle’ and ‘medium passenger motor vehicle’ as well as ‘light motor vehicle’ in Section 2(21) of the Act to mean: “light motor vehicle” means a transport vehicle or 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 exceed 7500 kilograms”. Learned counsel submits that in compliance of order of this Hon’ble Court, the Insurance Company has already deposited a sum of Rs.4 Lac. before the learned Tribunal. 13. Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of owner of the vehicle and Mr. Suraj Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants (respondent nos. 1 to 4) vehemently opposes contention of learned counsel appearing on behalf of Insurance Company and submits that there is no illegality or any infirmity in the impugned order rather compensation awarded is not just and proper and it should be enhanced in view of loss to the claimants. 1 to 4) vehemently opposes contention of learned counsel appearing on behalf of Insurance Company and submits that there is no illegality or any infirmity in the impugned order rather compensation awarded is not just and proper and it should be enhanced in view of loss to the claimants. Learned counsels further relies upon the Judgment passed in the case of Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in AIR 2017 SC 3668 and further refers to paragraph-46 of the said Judgment. Learned counsel submits that there is no ambiguity or illegality in the impugned order and rightly Insurance Company has been saddled with amount of compensation. 14. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the records. From perusal of documents and evidences brought on record, the written statements and arguments advanced by respective parties, this court is of the view that there is no illegality or any infirmity in the impugned order. Para-46 of the Judgment passed in the case of Mukund Dewangan (Supra) is relevant to be quoted herein: “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 28.03.2001. 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 28.03.2001. 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 … … … … … … ” 15. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. Appellant – Insurance Company is directed to deposit entire awarded amount of compensation (excluding the amount already deposited) along with interest in terms of Judgment passed by the learned Tribunal, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. Upon deposit of the awarded amount, the same shall be disbursed to the claimants, if not already disbursed, in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. Insurance Company is permitted to withdraw statutory amount deposited at the time of filing instant appeal. 16. Appeal is disposed of in aforementioned terms. 17. Pending Interlocutory Applications stand disposed of. 18. Let the lower court record be returned to court concerned.