JUDGMENT M.G.Uma, J. - The appellant-insurance company (for short 'insurer') approached this Court aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 20.09.2011 passed in MVC No.178/2011 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal- XII, Bellary (for short 'Tribunal'), whereunder the claim of the petitioners (for short 'claimants') was allowed in part directing the respondents No.1 to 3 i.e. driver, insured and insurer to pay compensation of Rs.4,18,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. 2. Heard the learned advocate for the appellant Sri.Ravindra R. Mane and learned advocate Sri.M.Amaregouda for respondents No.1 to 4. 3. The brief facts of the case are that; the claimants contended before the Tribunal that they are the wife, children and mother of the deceased Ranganna who died in a road traffic accident that had occurred on 30.09.2008 at 9.30 am, when the driver of the excavator/construction equipment, bearing No.AP-28/MB-T/R-1176 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and hit the compound wall, resulting in the collapse of the wall of the house, in which the deceased along with one Ramanjineyulu was residing. As a result of the accident, the deceased had sustained grievous injuries and immediately he was shifted to Medicity Hospital, Hyderabad. But inspite of that, he succumbed to the injuries. 4. It is contended by the claimants that the deceased was aged 50 years and was doing coolie work and earning Rs.9,000/- per month. The claimants being the dependants are entitled for compensation. It is also stated that respondent No.1 before the Tribunal was the driver of the offending vehicle, while respondent No.2 was the owner and respondent No.3 is the insurer of the said vehicle and they are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. 5. Respondents No.1 and 2 have appeared before the Tribunal, but they have not submitted their objections. Respondent No.3-insurer represented by its advocate appeared before the Tribunal, filed its statement of objection, denying the contentions of the claimants with regard to the accident, rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, entitlement of the claimants for compensation and also its liability to pay compensation. Specifically it is contended that driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the same and since there is violation of the conditions of the policy, the insurer is not liable to pay any compensation. 6. Specifically it is contended that driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the same and since there is violation of the conditions of the policy, the insurer is not liable to pay any compensation. 6. The first claimant being the wife of the deceased, examined herself as PW1 and got marked Ex.P1 to 8 in support of her claim. The insurer examined RW1 and 2 and got marked Ex.R1 to 4 in support of its defence. The Tribunal after taking into consideration all these materials on record, came to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.4,18,000/- from respondents No.1 and 2 jointly and severally and also directed respondent No.3-insurer to indemnify respondent No.2 by depositing the compensation amount within 30 days from the date of award. 7. Aggrieved by the said judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the insurer has preferred this appeal challenging the validity of the judgment, fixing the liability on the insurer, inspite of the fact that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident. 8. Learned advocate representing the insurer submitted that the insurer has led evidence before the Tribunal by examining RW1 and 2 and got marked copy of the insurance policy, copy of the driving licence and also the letter addressed to the driver of the offending vehicle as Ex.R1 to 4. These documents clearly go to show that the driver in question was not having valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident and under such circumstances, the Tribunal could not have passed the judgment, directing the insurer to indemnify the owner by depositing the amount of compensation. He submitted that the vehicle involved in the accident is a dumper/excavator classified as transport vehicle under the Motor Vehicles Act and unless the driver is authorized to drive the transport vehicle, it cannot be said that he was having valid and effective driving licence to drive the said class of vehicle. 9. Learned advocate also placed his reliance on the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in SADASHIV AND ORS. Vs. DYAVAKKA AND ORS. 9. Learned advocate also placed his reliance on the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in SADASHIV AND ORS. Vs. DYAVAKKA AND ORS. 1 MFA NOs.23085/2012 AND 24405/2010 (MV) decided on 10.09.2015, High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, in support of his contention that the insurer cannot be held liable, when the driver was not having valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle at the time of accident. 10. Per contra the learned advocate representing the claimants contended that the Tribunal has considered the contention taken by the insurer and came to the right conclusion that the insurer is liable to pay compensation. Admittedly the driver was holding driving licence to drive light motor vehicle. Under such circumstances, the liability of the insurer cannot be denied. He also contended that the claimants being the third parties to the contract of insurance are entitled to claim compensation from the insurer irrespective of violation of any terms and conditions of the policy if any, by the insured. Therefore he contends that impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper, which do not call for any interference and prays for dismissal of the appeal. 11. Since the only point that was raised for my consideration by the parties to the litigation, is with regard to validity of the driving licence of the driver and liability of the insurer, it is required to consider the said driving licence, which is produced before the Tribunal as per Ex.R2. As per Ex.R2, the driver Md.Faquruddin was permitted to drive motorcycle, scooter, car and jeep only, with effect from 25.10.2005 till 24.10.2010. It is pertinent to note that this document is not the disputed document. In the light of this document, I have to consider whether the driver of the offending vehicle can be said to be having valid and effective driving licence as on that date. 12. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court in SADASHIV AND ORS. Vs. DYAVAKKA AND ORS. (supra) had an occasion to consider similar question where the offending vehicle involved in the accident was also a excavator/construction equipment. The Court considered various provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and Central Motor Vehicles Rules and held that the JCB/excavator, defined under Rule 2(ca) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 as a construction equipment vehicle is classified as non transport vehicle. The Court considered various provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and Central Motor Vehicles Rules and held that the JCB/excavator, defined under Rule 2(ca) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 as a construction equipment vehicle is classified as non transport vehicle. It is held that it is a special vehicle but it is not a light motor vehicle falling under Section 2(21) of the Act. 13. On consideration of various provisions referred to above, I do not find any reason to form a different opinion and therefore I concur with the finding given by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court and hold that the JCB/excavator/construction equipment vehicle, generally termed as JCB, is not a light motor vehicle falling under Section 2(21) of the Act, but it is a special vehicle by itself as defined under Rule 2(ca) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and it requires special skill for its driving. Under such circumstances, the driver driving the said category of vehicle, should have held the driving licence issued to drive the said class of vehicle, as required under Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 14. In view of the discussions held above, I am of the opinion that the driver of the offending vehicle Md.Faquruddin was not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle in question. 15. Having said that, I am also conscious of the position of law as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHAMANNA AND ANOTHER Vs. DIVISIONAL MANAGER ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. AND OTHERS, (2018) AIR SC 3726 wherein the liability of the insurer against 3rd party risk was considered and after relying on the its decision in SWARAN SINGH case, (2004) AIR SC 1531 held as under: " 8. The Supreme Court considered the decision of Swaran Singh case, (2004) AIR SC 1531 in subsequent decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Laxmi Narain Dhut, (2007) 3 SCC 700 : ( AIR 2007 SC 1563 ), wherein this Court held that "the decision in Swaran Singh case has no application to cases other than third party risks and in case of third party risks the insurer has to indemnify the amount and if so advised, to recover the same from the insured". The same principle was reiterated in Prem Kumari v. Prahlad Dev and others, (2008) 3 SCC 193 : ( AIR 2008 SC 1073 ) . 12. The same principle was reiterated in Prem Kumari v. Prahlad Dev and others, (2008) 3 SCC 193 : ( AIR 2008 SC 1073 ) . 12. Since the reference to the larger bench in Parvathneni case has been disposed of by keeping the questions of law open to be decided in an appropriate case, presently the decision in Swaran Singh case, (2004) AIR SC 1531) followed in Laxmi Narain Dhut, (2007) AIR SC 1563 and other cases hold the field." 16. In view of the settled position of law as above, I am of the opinion that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle, as on the date of the accident. The claimants being the 3rd parties are required to be paid the compensation by the insurer, ofcourse subject to the principle 'pay and recover'. 17. I may also have to add that the insurer need not have to file a separate suit for recovery of compensation amount, if the same is paid to the claimants and it is suffice to file an application before the executing Court seeking execution of the order of pay and recover. In this regard, I may again refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in SHAMANNA AND ANOTHER Vs. DIVISIONAL MANAGER ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. AND OTHERS (supra) which has made this position clear in paragraph 13 which reads as under: "13. So far as the recovery of the amount from the owner of the vehicle, the insurance company shall recover as held in the decision in Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. v.Nanjappan and others, (2004) 13 SCC 224 : ( AIR 2004 SC 1630 ) where this Court held that " . for the purpose of recovering the same from the insured, the insurer shall not be required to file a suit. It may initiate a proceeding before the concerned Executing Court as if the dispute between the insurer and the owner was the subject-matter of determination before the Tribunal and the issue is decided against the owner and in favour of the insurer." 18. It may initiate a proceeding before the concerned Executing Court as if the dispute between the insurer and the owner was the subject-matter of determination before the Tribunal and the issue is decided against the owner and in favour of the insurer." 18. In view of the discussions held above, I am of the opinion that even though the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle, as on the date of accident and even though the insurer is not liable to indemnify the insured as per the terms of the insurance policy, which is as per Ex.R1, the insurer is liable to pay the compensation as awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants and proceed to recover the same from the insured/owner, in accordance with law. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER Appeal is allowed in part. The finding of the trial Court that the insurer is liable to pay compensation to the claimants, jointly and severally with the insured/owner, is set aside. It is held that the insurer is liable to pay compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants within 30 days from today and is at liberty to proceed to recover the same from the insured/owner, in accordance with law. The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal with regard to other aspects of the matter is confirmed.