JUDGMENT : Abdul Quddhose, J. Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and decree made in MCOP.No.606 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accident claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge and Special Judge for EC Act cases) at Salem dated 12.03.2012. 1. This appeal has been filed by the insurance company challenging the award dated 12.03.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge and Special Judge for EC Act cases) at Salem in MCOP.No.606 of 2009. Brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal: 2. A person by name S.Krishnan died on 29.01.2009 as a result of an accident caused by a Tata Ace vehicle bearing registration No.TN28-AC-9019 owned by the fourth respondent and insured with the Appellant/Insurance Company. The accident happened when the deceased was riding his motor cycle bearing registration No.TN28-AB-7371 on the Kalangani-Pudhansenthai Road when the tata ace vehicle bearing registration No.TN28-AC-9019 coming from the opposite direction, dashed against the motor cycle driven by the deceased which resulted in the death of S.Krishnan. 3. The dependents of the deceased who are his wife and two daughters preferred a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in MCOP.No.606 of 2009 against the fourth respondent as well as the Appellant insurance company seeking a compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- for the death of R.Krishnan. 4. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by its Award dated 12.03.2012 passed in MCOP.No.606 of 2009 directed the Appellant Insurance company to pay the claimants a compensation of Rs.37,31,652/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim till the date of realisation. Out of the total compensation amount of Rs.37,31,652/-, the Tribunal determined the amount payable to the first respondent at Rs.17,31,652/- and the second and third respondents at Rs.10,00,000/- each. 5. Aggrieved by the Award dated 12.03.2012 passed in MCOP.No.606 of 2009, this Appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company. 6. Heard Mr.M.Krishnamoorthy, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant. Discussion: 7. The Appellant insurance company has challenged the impugned award only on the ground that they are not liable to compensate the claimants since the driver of the Tata Ace goods vehicle (Insured Vehicle) did not possess the badge endorsement for driving a goods vehicle in his driving license. 6. Heard Mr.M.Krishnamoorthy, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant. Discussion: 7. The Appellant insurance company has challenged the impugned award only on the ground that they are not liable to compensate the claimants since the driver of the Tata Ace goods vehicle (Insured Vehicle) did not possess the badge endorsement for driving a goods vehicle in his driving license. It is their case that being a goods vehicle, the driver should possess a badge endorsement in his driving license and the absence of the said endorsement is violation of policy condition. 8. The issue raised by the Appellant has now been well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in 2017 (2) TN MAC 145 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “LMV” under Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 includes Transport Vehicles of that category as per weight prescribed in Section 2(21) read with 2(15) and 2(48) and therefore, no separate endorsement is required to be obtained by the holder of LMV license to drive a Transport vehicle. In the case on hand, the driver of the insured vehicle was holding a valid LMV license, though without a badge endorsement. The LMV driving license was marked as Ex.P7 before the Tribunal. 9. In view of the settled proposition of law as laid down by the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company has to fail. Apart from this ground, the Appellant has not raised any other ground and has also not raised any dispute as regards the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Conclusion: 10. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in this appeal and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in the admission stage itself. The Appellant insurance company is directed to deposit the entire award amount of Rs.37,31,652/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim till the date of realisation and costs after deducting the amount, if any already deposited, to the credit of MCOP.No.606 of 2009 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On such deposit being made, the Tribunal is directed to transfer the respective share of award amount to the first and second respondents as per the order of the Tribunal through RTGS within a period of four weeks thereafter. Since the third respondent is minor, her share of award amount shall be deposited in an interest bearing fixed deposit in any Nationalized bank till she attains majority. However, the accrued interest under the fixed deposit shall be permitted to be withdrawn by the first respondent once in 6 months. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.