JUDGMENT : Arvind Kumar Mishra-I, J. 1. Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the owner-appellant, Sri Ashok Kumar Singh and Sri Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.6 and perused the material brought on record. 2. By way of the instant appeal, challenge has been made to the award and order dated 16.02.2000 passed by IIIrd Additional District & Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur/Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, in Motor Accident Claim Case No.71 of 1996 Smt. Badami Devi and others Vs. Ravindra Pal Yadav and others, whereby liability to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1,49,000/-has been saddled with the owner-appellant. 3. Brief reference of the relevant facts of the case as discernible from the certified copy of the impugned award appears to be that the accident in question was caused on 12.01.1996 at 9:00 p.m. on the tri-crossing of Village Futhawa Inar, Police Station Chauri Chaura, District Gorakhpur by rash and negligent driving of Maruti Van U.P.53 E 1575 by its drive whereby he dashed the same with Ram Dulare Chauhan, aged 40 years, the deceased due to which he sustained injury and on account of which he died. The matter was reported at Police Station Chauri Chaura, District Gorakhpur. 4. The claimants-respondents moved claim petition claiming overall compensation amount under various heads to the tune of Rs.11,80,000/-. The Insurance Company also contested the claim petition by filing written statement and on the basis of the same, the Tribunal framed as many as 9 issues regarding factum of the accident and various other counts as per respective pleadings of the parties. It also took note of the documents filed on record which have been elaborated and discussed in the impugned award dated 16.02.2000 (passed by the Tribunal) and after recording finding on various issues, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition and in its operative portion, it directed payment / realization of Rs.1,49,000/-along with 12% interest as the overall compensation which amount was directed to be distributed among the claimant-respondents, in various proportion. 5. Consequently, this appeal. 6. 5. Consequently, this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the owner-appellant has submitted that the liability to pay compensation has been wrongly saddled with the owner appellant on the ground that the offending vehicle, Maruti Van U.P.53 E 1575 was registered for commercial purpose, however, it was being plied, at the time of accident in question, for private purpose on account of which the Insurance Company claimed immunity branding the aforesaid act of the owner plying the vehicle in question to be in violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, which finding on the face is perverse, erroneous and not sustainable in view of the fact that in case any light motor vehicle is plied for whatsoever purpose – say -private or commercial by a duly licensed driver then it need not bear any particular/special endorsement on the driving licence of the driver as such that licence is meant for commercial purpose and the Insurance Company cannot claim immunity on that count, because the vehicle in question is admittedly motor vehicle for which a licence issued for driving a light motor vehicle will be a valid and effective driving licence. 7. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. 2017 (14) SCC 663 , particularly on paragraph nos. 45 and 46 which are extracted herein below: 45. 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 reward and includes a maxicab, 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 reward, 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 reward. 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 54/1994. 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 28.3.2001. 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 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. 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. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant-respondents has placed reliance on the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Shashi Prabha Sharma and others, AIR 2015 Allahabad 167 Full Bench Allahabad High Court and claimed that on the basis of the aforesaid citation, ratio is fixed in such cases like the present one, liability though may be fastened upon the Insurance Company to pay the amount of compensation initially on it but the same may be directed to be recovered from the owner of the offending vehicle. 9. Considered the rival submissions and gone through the impugned award passed by the Tribunal. 10. In this case, no cross objection has been filed by the claimant-respondents. Finding on issue no.8 though it has been wrongly mentioned as finding on issue no.7, however both the parties agreed that it be treated as finding on the point of validity and effectiveness of the driving licence as issue no.8. 10. In this case, no cross objection has been filed by the claimant-respondents. Finding on issue no.8 though it has been wrongly mentioned as finding on issue no.7, however both the parties agreed that it be treated as finding on the point of validity and effectiveness of the driving licence as issue no.8. The Tribunal after analyzing various aspects both legal as well as factual was of the opinion that the vehicle in question Maruti Van U.P.53 E 1575 primarily registered as commercial vehicle. However, it was being driven by a person though holding licence for driving the light motor vehicle but without any endorsement (on the licence) driving commercial vehicle would be violative of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and would amount to not driving such vehicle with valid and effective driving licence. 11. The point raised on behalf of the owner-appellant relates to fact that in view of the clear cut mandate of the Hon'ble Apex Court herein quoted above also fortifies claim of the owner-appellant that driving licence to drive the light motor vehicle will not lose its effectiveness merely on ground that the vehicle in question though registered for commercial purpose was being used at the time of the accident for private purpose and the point to be seen in such case is rooted to core consideration whether the nature of the vehicle permits the holder of the driving licence for driving light motor vehicle or not and that point works categorical in favour of the owner in the context. 12. In this case, validity of the driving licence cannot be doubted even in the absence of any particular or special endorsement made on it as that requirement is not legal one. The claim raised on behalf of the owner-appellant is sustained in view of the categorical finding recorded by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra). Similarly, finding recorded in relation to the validity of the driving licence on issue no.8 by the Tribunal is on the face perverse, erroneous and the same is hereby set aside and it is held that the driver of the offending vehicle Maruti Van U.P.53 E 1575 was duly licensed on 12.01.1996 at 9:00 p.m. when the accident occurred on the tri-crossing of Village Futhawa Inar, Police Station Chauri Chaura, District Gorakhpur. 13. 13. Insofar as overall amount awarded under facts and circumstances of the case as compensation amount to the tune of Rs.1,49,000/-is concerned, the same cannot be said to be either excessive or unreasonable, the same is justified, therefore, operative portion of the impugned award passed by the Tribunal dated 16.02.2000 along with 12% interest is hereby sustained. The entire amount of the compensation shall be paid by the insurer of the offending vehicle i.e. respondent no.6, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. instead of the owner-appellant Ravindra Pal Yadav. 14. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in terms aforesaid.