JUDGMENT : Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company and learned counsel for the respondent No.1/claimant, arguments are heard for final disposal. 2. This appeal is filed by the appellant Insurance Company assailing the judgment and award dated 07.01.2014 passed in M.V.C. No.700/2012 by the Member, MACT & XX Additional Small Causes Judge, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’ for the sake of brevity). 3. It may be stated that this appeal is preferred on the question of liability alone. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their status and ranking before the Tribunal. 4. The claimant had filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation on account of the injuries sustained in the motor vehicle accident. 5. The facts briefly stated are that on 29.12.2011, evening at about 6.00 p.m., the petitioner was going on 5th main road, J.P.Nagar, at that time, a goods auto bearing registration No.KA01AA5365 came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the petitioner, who was walking on the road. As a result of which, the petitioner fell down and the wheel of the goods auto ran over his left leg. Immediately he was taken to Jayanagar Orthopedic Centre Hospital and he has taken treatment as inpatient. Prior to the accident, the petitioner was working as a Supervisor in M/s. Kristal Systems and Engineering and was earning income of Rs.12,000/per month. On account of the injuries sustained in the accident, the petitioner has lost income and has also lost earning capacity. The respondents being the owner and insurer of the goods auto are liable to pay the compensation. 6. On service of notice, the respondent No.2 has remained absent, as such, he was placed exparte. The respondent No.1 – Insurance Company appeared through its counsel and filed objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and further contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the petitioner himself, as he was walking on the busy road, unmindful of the traffic. Thus, the petitioner himself has contributed negligence to the alleged accident. The issuance of insurance policy is denied. Thus, the petitioner himself has contributed negligence to the alleged accident. The issuance of insurance policy is denied. Further, it is contended that the driver of the goods auto was not having effective and valid driving licence as on the date of the accident and sought for dismissal of the claim petition. 7. Based on the aforesaid pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for its consideration: i. Whether petitioner prove that, in RTA that occurred on 29.12.2011 at about 6.00 p.m., on 5th main road, J.P.Nagar, Bangalore, was due to rash and negligent driving of Goods Auto bearing No.KA01AA5365 by its driver and in the said accident, he sustained injuries? ii. Whether petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom? iii. What order or award? 8. On appreciating the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of goods auto and has awarded a sum of Rs.93,000/along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and directed the respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally to satisfy the award. Liberty was reserved to proceed against respondent No.2 to recover the compensation paid to the petitioner, in case there is any violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 9. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the appellant Insurance Company has preferred the appeal. 10. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company and the learned counsel for the respondent No.1/claimant and perused the impugned judgment and award. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant – Insurance Company contends that the driver of the goods auto had no valid and effective driving licence, but the Tribunal has committed error in fixing the liability on the insurer of the said vehicle, which is not proper and justified. The direction issued to pay the compensation and to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle, is not proper and justified. 12. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1/claimant submits that the driver of the goods auto was having Light Motor Vehicle driving licence – Nontransport. Thus, the Tribunal was justified in fixing the liability on the Insurance Company under the pay and recover principle. 12. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1/claimant submits that the driver of the goods auto was having Light Motor Vehicle driving licence – Nontransport. Thus, the Tribunal was justified in fixing the liability on the Insurance Company under the pay and recover principle. As such, there are no valid grounds to interfere with the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. 13. In view of the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company and the learned counsel for the respondent No.1/claimant, the only point that would arise for consideration is: Whether the finding given by the Tribunal fixing the liability on the Insurance Company to pay the compensation under pay and recover principle is justified? 14. As per the submission made by the learned counsel for both parties, the issue before this Court is whether the driver of the goods auto had an endorsement in his driving licence for driving a transport vehicle. 15. The said issue is no more resintegraas it has been decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., ( AIR 2017 SC 3668 ). The Hon’ble Apex Court has held that if the driver of the offending vehicle has a valid licence for driving light motor vehicle, then there is no need for having specific endorsement in the driving licence for driving a transport vehicle. 16. In the present case, ExhibitR2 which is the Driving Licence extract pertaining to the driver of the goods auto discloses that the driver of the offending vehicle was having Driving Licence – Light Motor Vehicle, as on the date of the accident. Thus he was not debarred from driving the Light Motor Vehicle – (Transport). Hence, even if there is no specific endorsement in the driving licence of the driver of the goods auto (LMV), absence of such endorsement will not absolve the Insurance Company of its liability to pay the compensation amount to the respondent. In view of the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision the finding given by the tribunal fixing the liability on the insurer of the goods auto is justified and the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company is devoid of merits. In view of the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision the finding given by the tribunal fixing the liability on the insurer of the goods auto is justified and the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company is devoid of merits. In view of the latest dicta of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the direction issued for recovering the compensation paid to the victim from the owner of the vehicle does not hold good. Hence, the finding given by the Tribunal is justified. 17. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the view that there are no valid grounds for interference of the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, I pass the following: a. The Miscellaneous First Appeal filed by the appellant Insurance Company is dismissed. b. The amount in deposit before this Court by the Insurance Company shall be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal. c. The parties to bear their respective costs.