JUDGMENT : I.A. No. 3161 of 2016 The instant Interlocutory Application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone delay of 316 days in presenting the appeal. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on being satisfied with the grounds taken in paragraph Nos.4 to 10 of the instant Interlocutory Application, the delay of 316 days in filing instant appeal is hereby condoned. Accordingly, I.A. No. 3161 of 2016 stands disposed of. M.A. No. 50 of 2013 This Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred against the Judgment/ Award dated 20.01.2012 passed by learned Presiding Officer, MACT, Jamtara in MACT Case No. 8 of 2010 whereby and whereunder the claim application filed by the claimant has been allowed and direction has been issued to the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.4,30,000/- and the same is to be recovered from the owner of the vehicle i.e. appellant herein. 2. The facts of the case as per the claim petition is that the claim application was filed by one Kalawati Devi and Bhim Pandit under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act. The deceased Haradhan Pandit, who was Mason by profession and earning Rs.6000/- per month and aged about 19 years while returning to home met with an accident on 19.01.2010 at about 15:30. A Tractor bearing No. JH 21A/7451 and Trailor bearing registration No. JH 21A/7452 hit Haradhan Pandit near Bandodangal resulting into his death. Upon notice the appellant, the Insurance Company as well as the driver of the vehicle had appeared in the proceeding in the Court below. The appellant in his written statement stated that the vehicle in question was insured with the National Insurance Company and the insurance was valid w.e.f. 24.12.2009 to 23.12.2010 and all the documents of the vehicle were in order and the driver was possessing valid driving licence therefore, liability is to be paid only by the Insurance Company as there was no negligence on the part of the driver or the owner of the vehicle. It was further stated that the driver of the vehicle has never driven the vehicle in rash and in negligent manner, therefore, monetary benefit is to be paid only by the Insurance Company. 3. The parties appeared before the Court below/Tribunal and were heard. It was further stated that the driver of the vehicle has never driven the vehicle in rash and in negligent manner, therefore, monetary benefit is to be paid only by the Insurance Company. 3. The parties appeared before the Court below/Tribunal and were heard. After examining the witnesses and perusing the evidences on record, the learned Tribunal framed the issues and came to a finding that the claimants are entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.4,80,000/- Out of this, claimants have already received Rs. 50,000/- from Insurance Company Ltd. by way of ad interim compensation. Therefore, Insurance Company was directed to pay Rs.4,30,000/- to the claimants within a period of three months, failing which 6 % shall be paid by the Insurance. Further, it was directed that Insurance Company Ltd. may recover the said amount from the owner of the vehicle i.e. appellant herein in accordance with law. 4. Mr. Abhay Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-owner assailed the impugned award /judgment on the ground that owner was not liable to pay a single penny rather it was Insurance Company who is liable to pay the entire amount as awarded by the learned court below. Learned counsel further argues that driver was having a valid driving licence on the date of accident. The driver was having a licence of LMV and also Heavy Goods Vehicle and as such, it cannot be said that he was liable for paying the amount or insurance company could recover the said amount from the owner. Learned counsel places heavy reliance on a judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Mukund Devegan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. reported in (2017) 4 SCC 663. Learned counsel further argues that learned Tribunal has not at all considered that only class of vehicle which are described under the Motor Vehicle Act are light motor vehicle, medium good vehicle, medium passenger, heavy goods vehicle and heavy passenger vehicle. The learned Tribunal cannot deviate from the finding and without any reason whatsoever can direct the appellant herein to make the payment of liability as the same is to be paid by the Insurance Company as the owner has not violated Section 149 of the Motor Vehicle Act. 5. Mr. The learned Tribunal cannot deviate from the finding and without any reason whatsoever can direct the appellant herein to make the payment of liability as the same is to be paid by the Insurance Company as the owner has not violated Section 149 of the Motor Vehicle Act. 5. Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that after examining the witnesses and documents on record, the learned Tribunal has rightly directed the Insurance Company to recover the awarded amount from the owner. Hence, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned award. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties and observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Mukund Dewangan (supra) and on perusal of the record, it is not in dispute that in cases where the driver having a licence to drive LMV which also includes to drive a transport vehicle met with an accident while driving a transport vehicle, liability for payment of the awarded amount is with owner of the vehicle. However, in the instant case, on perusal of the driving licence, which is taken on board, it is crystal clear that on the date of accident, driver was having a valid licence of LMV as well as Heavy Goods Vehicle and as such, order of the learned Tribunal is modified to that extent that Insurance Company is liable to pay the awarded amount and it cannot be recovered from the owner as the driver was having valid driving licence. 7. The Statutory amount of Rs. 25,000/- deposited by the appellant shall be refunded within a period of two weeks’ from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands allowed. 9. Pending I.As, if any, also stand disposed of.