JUDGMENT Nataraj Rangaswamy, J. - This appeal is filed by the insurer challenging the Judgment and Award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal V, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru City in MVC No.8750/2007, in so far as it relates to the liability imposed upon it by the Tribunal to pay the compensation awarded. 2. The claim petition would disclose that on 10.11.2007 at about 7.45 pm., the deceased was riding his motor cycle and when he reached Sri.Shanimahatma temple, Naganathapura, a JCB bearing registration No.KA-51-N-4498 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased. As a result, the deceased sustained serious injuries and was shifted to St.John s Hospital, where he succumbed to injuries on the next day. A case was registered by Madivala Traffic Police Station in Crime No.466/2007 against the driver of the JCB under Sections 279, 337 and 304A of IPC. The claimants who were the legal representatives of the deceased filed a claim petition seeking compensation of a sum of Rs.50,00,000/-. 3. The insurer contended that the JCB in question was insured by it, but, the driver of the JCB did not possess a valid driving licence. The driver possessed only a licence to drive a light motor vehicle and there was no endorsement permitting the driver to drive a JCB. It further contended that the rider of the motor cycle was responsible for the accident. 4. Before the Tribunal, the claimant No.1 was examined as PW1 and she marked Exs.P1 to P25, while for the respondents, an executive of the insurer was examined as RW1 and the Assistant RTO was examined as RW2, while RW3 was the owner of the JCB in question and Exs.R1 to R4 were marked. 5. The Tribunal considered the evidence on record and held that the claimants were entitled to a sum of Rs.9,06,000/- as compensation along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit in the Court. 6. The Tribunal while considering the question of liability, held that the JCB in question was a construction vehicle and that construction equipment would not fall within the Class of non transport vehicle and that the driver of the JCB not only possessed a driving licence to drive the light motor vehicle but also a light motor vehicle cab. 6. The Tribunal while considering the question of liability, held that the JCB in question was a construction vehicle and that construction equipment would not fall within the Class of non transport vehicle and that the driver of the JCB not only possessed a driving licence to drive the light motor vehicle but also a light motor vehicle cab. Thus, the Tribunal held that the driver of the offending JCB was authorized to drive the JCB in question, since it fell within the meaning of a light transport vehicle . The Tribunal therefore, fastened the liability to pay the compensation upon the insurer of the offending vehicle JCB. 7. Learned counsel for the insurer in this appeal contended that the JCB is not a vehicle which is classified anywhere in the Motor Vehicles Act as either a transport vehicle or as a construction vehicle . Learned counsel further contended that in view of evidence of RW2, it is apparent that the vehicle in question was a special type of vehicle which required special driving skills and therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant-insurer would contend that the driver ought to have possessed an endorsement to drive the JCB. The learned counsel further contended that in the light of evidence of RW2, the Tribunal was not justified in fixing the liability to pay the compensation upon the insurer. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimants contended that the JCB is treated as a construction equipment as defined under Rule 2(ca) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and that the notification issued by the Central Government under Section 41(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 specifies construction vehicle as non-transport vehicle and therefore, in view of the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Ins.Co.Ltd, (2017) 14 SCC 663 , the driver of the JCB in question who held a licence to drive the light motor vehicle was authorized to drive a non transport vehicle as well. 9. The learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the Judgment of this Court in MFA No.21800/2010 and connected appeals, wherein this Court while considering the very same question held that a JCB is a construction equipment vehicle and is considered as a non transport vehicle. 9. The learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the Judgment of this Court in MFA No.21800/2010 and connected appeals, wherein this Court while considering the very same question held that a JCB is a construction equipment vehicle and is considered as a non transport vehicle. In that case too, this Court was dealing with a case of JCB vehicle which was responsible for an accident claim. 10. It is not in dispute that the Central Government in terms of its notification dated 19.06.1992 had clearly delineated construction equipment vehicles as non transport vehicles . In view of the fact that the driver of the JCB in question possessed a licence to drive a light motor vehicle and in view of what was held by the Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan, the driver of the JCB was indeed authorized to drive a JCB in question and therefore, the Tribunal was right in fixing the liability to pay the compensation upon the insurer. 11. There is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. 12. The amount in deposit is directed to be transferred to the Tribunal for further orders.