JUDGMENT : R. DEVDAS, J. This is the second round of litigation before this Court. On an earlier occasion, when the Tribunal had held that the driver of the offending vehicle who was driving tractor cum trailer was not holding valid licence to drive the same, therefore, though the insurance policy was in currency, the liability was fastened on the owner of the vehicle. 2. On an appeal in MFA No.10023/2012, this Court remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration after examining the Regional Transport Officer with respect to the driving licence that the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a valid driving licence as on the date of the accident. 3. On remand, the Tribunal examined Sri Jagadeesh G.Rudrappa, Second Divisional Assistant of Regional Transport Office, Haveri, as RW2. The extract of the driving licence was marked as Ex.R9. Having examined Ex.R9, the Tribunal once again observes that it was evident from the extract of the driving licence that the driver was holding licence to drive heavy goods vehicle and yet comes to a conclusion that he was not holding a valid driving licence to drive a tractor-cumtrailer. Consequently, the liability was fastened on the owner of the vehicle and the insurance company was absolved of its liability even though the policy was in operation. 4. The owner of the tractor-cum-trailer is before this Court challenging the judgment and award passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Harihar in MVC No.16/2010. The only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is; “Whether the Tribunal was justified in arriving at a conclusion that the driver of the offending vehicle i.e., tractor-cum-trailer was not holding a valid driving licence to drive the vehicle in question at the time of accident?” 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the issue is no more resintegra in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan /vs./ Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in AIR 2017 SC 3668 . It is submitted that even otherwise, the extract of the driving licence which was examined as Ex.R9 would clearly show that the driver was holding a valid driving licence to drive transport vehicles and non-transport vehicles. It is submitted that even otherwise, the extract of the driving licence which was examined as Ex.R9 would clearly show that the driver was holding a valid driving licence to drive transport vehicles and non-transport vehicles. The learned counsel draws the attention of this Court to the extract of the driving licence i.e., Ex.R9 and submits that the driver was holding valid driving licence to drive light motor vehicle, transport vehicle, light motor vehicle cabs and public service vehicleBus. It is also evident that the licence was renewed from time to time and that on 17.12.2007 the driving licnece was renewed w.e.f., 17.12.2007 to 16.12.2010. The date of the accident is 21.03.2009. Therefore, as on the date of accident, the driver was holding valid driving licence to drive all the four categories of vehicle mentioned therein. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent-insurance company would submit that no fault could be found in the impugned order since there was no specific endorsement in the driving licence to drive a tractor-cum-trailer. 7. Heard the learned counsels and perused the appeal papers. 8. As noticed earlier, the only question that arises for consideration is; “whether the Tribunal was justified in arriving at a conclusion that the driver was not holding a valid driving licence to drive a tractor-cum-trailer?”. 9. What is noticeable is that the Tribunal has noticed Section 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘MV ACT, 1988), which provides for issuance of driving license in the following category of vehicle; (a) motor cycle without gear (b) motor cycle with gear (c) invalid carriage (d) light motor vehicle (e) transport vehicle (f) road-roller (g) motor vehicle of a specified description 10. In the case of Mukund Dewangan, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has elaborately considered the question as to whether the person holding a driving licence to drive a light motor vehicle could be held as holding valid driving licence to drive a transport vehicle as seen at Section 10(2)(e) of the MV Act 1988. The Apex Court has held that once a licence is issued to drive light motor vehicle, it would also mean specific authorization to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, goods vehicle or motor car, road roller or tractor, unladen weight of which, as case may be, does not exceed 7500 kgs. The Apex Court has held that once a licence is issued to drive light motor vehicle, it would also mean specific authorization to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, goods vehicle or motor car, road roller or tractor, unladen weight of which, as case may be, does not exceed 7500 kgs. It was noticed that Insertion of ‘transport vehicle’ category in S.10(2)(e) has no effect of obliterating the already defined category of transport vehicles of class of light motor vehicle. A distinction is made in the Act, between heavy goods vehicle, heavy passenger motor vehicle, medium goods vehicle and medium passenger motor vehicle on basis of ‘gross vehicle weight’ or ‘unladen weight’ of heavy passenger motor vehicle, heavy goods vehicle, as case may be, exceeding 12,000 kgs. 11. What is noticeable in the present case is that the driver was holding a valid driving licence to drive ‘heavy goods vehicle’ which has been noticed by the Tribunal. Inspite of the same, the Tribunal has very casually come to a conclusion that driver was supposed to have an endorsement to drive a tractor-cum-trailer, which in the opinion of this Court, was uncalled for. 12. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent-insurance company that in the case of Mukund Dewangan, the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the case where the driver was holding a licence to drive a ‘light motor vehicle’ and the Apex Court having regard to the same, has come to a conclusion that if driver is holding a driving licence to drive the light motor vehicle he is also deemed to have a driving license to drive a transport vehicle, or a tractor whose unladen weight does not exceed 7500 kg. But, on the other hand, it is submitted that in the present case, the vehicle involved is a tractor-cum-trailer, therefore the weight exceeds 7500 kg. Even this submission may not hold any water because as noticed above, the driver was holding a valid driving licence to drive ‘heavy good vehicle’. Therefore, even if it is considered as a heavy goods vehicle, the driver was holding a valid driving licence to drive such a vehicle whose unladen weight exceeded 7500 kgs. 13. It is also noticeable that the Second Divisional Assistant of Regional Transport Office, who was examined as RW2 has not thrown proper light on these aspects of the matter. Therefore, even if it is considered as a heavy goods vehicle, the driver was holding a valid driving licence to drive such a vehicle whose unladen weight exceeded 7500 kgs. 13. It is also noticeable that the Second Divisional Assistant of Regional Transport Office, who was examined as RW2 has not thrown proper light on these aspects of the matter. No doubt, the decision in Mukund Dewangan has come subsequent to the impugned order. But nevertheless even as per Section 10, the class of vehicles enumerated therein, does not enlist a special category of driving licence to drive a tractor-cum-trailer. A generic term ‘transport vehicle’ is used in Section 10(2)(e). It was the bounden duty of the officer to have submitted before the Tribunal that no such special endorsement was required to be issued by the RTO to enable a person to drive tractor-cum-trailer. 14. Having regard to the above aspects, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. The driver of the vehicle is found to have a valid driving licence to drive a heavy goods vehicle and therefore even if it is considered that the tractor-cum-trailer would exceed the unladen weight of 7800 kg and therefore it should be considered as heavy goods vehicle, even then the driver was holding a valid driving licence to drive ‘heavy goods vehicle’ and therefore he is declared to have been holding a valid driving licence to drive a tractor-cum-trailer as on the date of the accident. Since it is an admitted fact that the owner of the vehicle was holding a insurance policy which was valid as the on the date of accident, the liability of paying the compensation awarded by the Tribunal shall now lie on the respondent No.4insurance company. 15. Consequently, the impugned order stands modified to the extent that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal shall now be paid by the 4th respondent-insurance company to the claimants i.e., respondents No.1 & 2. The rest of the order passed by the Tribunal shall remain intact and shall be complied by the respondent No.4-insurance company. The compensation along with interest shall be deposited within a period of 6 weeks. 16. The rest of the order passed by the Tribunal shall remain intact and shall be complied by the respondent No.4-insurance company. The compensation along with interest shall be deposited within a period of 6 weeks. 16. The statutory deposit made by the appellant/ owner of the vehicle before this Court in this appeal and the deposit made earlier in the previous round of litigation before this Court, which was transferred to the Tribunal shall be released to the appellant forthwith. 17. In view of the disposal of the main matter as above, the pending interlocutory applications do not survive for consideration.