JUDGMENT M. Ganga Rao, J. - Appellant - 3rd respondent - National Insurance Company Limited filed this appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the order and decree, dated 04.09.2006, passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - IV Additional District Judge, East Godavari, Kakinanada, in MVOP.No.218 of 2004, granting compensation of Rs.10,50,000/-, for the death of the deceased - Somanchi (Ravi) Baby Satyaveni in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 13.04.2004. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant insurance company - 3rd respondent and learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 - petitioners/claimants. 3. The parties in this appeal shall be referred to as they are arraigned in the Original Petition before the Tribunal, for the sake of convenience. 4. The introductory facts are as follows: 1 st petitioner is the husband, 2nd petitioner is the daughter and 3rd petitioner is the son of the deceased. Petitioners, being legal heirs of the deceased, filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act read with Rule 455 of Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, claiming compensation of Rs.16,00,000/- inter alia stating that at the time of the death of the deceased, she used to work as a teacher in Z.P.H School, Voolapalli and draw monthly salary of Rs.8,000/-. On 13.04.2004, at about 12:30 PM at Joduthumulu center, while the deceased and two others and the 1st respondent - driver of the auto bearing No.AP 5X 9674 were coming from Kakinada towards Biccavolu MROs office and when the said auto reached near Joduthumulu center, the driver of the auto tried to cross the opposite lorry and due to high speed of the auto, 1st respondent - driver of the auto lost control over the same as a result of which the auto turned turtle on the road and thereby the deceased received crush and bleeding injuries and died on the spot due to the injuries. The 1st respondent is purely responsible for the accident. Station House officer, Biccavole Police Station, registered case in Crime No.31 of 2004 under Sections 338 and 304-A IPC. 1st respondent is the driver, 2nd respondent is the owner and 3rd respondent is insurer of the crime vehicle. Hence, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. Respondents 1 & 2 remained ex parte. Station House officer, Biccavole Police Station, registered case in Crime No.31 of 2004 under Sections 338 and 304-A IPC. 1st respondent is the driver, 2nd respondent is the owner and 3rd respondent is insurer of the crime vehicle. Hence, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. Respondents 1 & 2 remained ex parte. 3 rd respondent filed its written statement denying the allegations in the petition. While admitting the subsistence of the policy of the auto with its company contended inter alia that the occurrence of accident is not reported by the insured in collusion with the petitioners with a view to cause loss to the insurance company. As such, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners. In any case, the amount of compensation is highly excessive, arbitrary and the petitioners are not entitled to any amount. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for its consideration. 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the auto bearing No.AP 5 X 9674 by its driver the 1st respondent resulting in the deathof Somanchi (Ravi) Baby Satyaveni? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation, if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? 3. To what relief? At the trial, the 1st petitioner himself was examined as PW1 and on his behalf, PWs2 & 3 are examined and exhibits A1 to A8 are marked on behalf of the petitioners. On behalf of contesting 3rd respondent, RW1 is examined and exhibits B1 to B3 were marked. By the order impugned in this appeal, the Tribunal allowed the petition in part with proportionate costs and awarded compensation of Rs.10,50,000/- to the petitioners with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation and respondents 1 & 2 are only liable to pay the above compensation amount to the petitioners. However, the 3rd respondent was directed to deposit the compensation first and recover it from the 2nd respondent. Being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal directing the appellant insurance company to pay compensation to the petitioners first and then recover the same from the 2nd respondent, and contending that the compensation awarded is not in accordance with law, the present appeal is filed by the insurance company. 5. Being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal directing the appellant insurance company to pay compensation to the petitioners first and then recover the same from the 2nd respondent, and contending that the compensation awarded is not in accordance with law, the present appeal is filed by the insurance company. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the Tribunal grossly erred in granting total compensation of Rs.10,50,000/- by taking the earnings of the deceased as Rs.8,000/- per month by working as a teacher in Z.P.H School, Voolapalli. Further, the Tribunal erred in applying the multiplier 16' by taking the age of the deceased as 38 years, as in the case of death of wife, the age of the husband has to be taken into consideration in determining the multiplier. The Tribunal grossly erred in directing the insurance company to pay the entire compensation first to the claimants and then recover the same from the 2nd respondent - owner of the offending vehicle. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive. The order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants would strenuously contend that the Tribunal rightly granted just compensation based on the evidence available on record. The order and decree of the Tribunal does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference of this Court. 7. I have perused the order/Award impugned. 8. The Tribunal, dealing with issue no.1, considered the evidence of PW2, who is a colleague of the deceased and who travelled along with the deceased at the time of accident and who also received injuries in the said accident, PW3 - Mathematics teacher in S.M.B.V.Z.P High School, Voolapalli village, who was examined in support of the case of the claimants, coupled with exhibit A1- attested copy of FIR in Crime No.31 of 2004, exhibit A2- attested copy of post mortem report, exhibit A3 - attested copy of MVI report, exhibit A4 - attested copy of inquest report, and rightly came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto and accordingly answered issue No.1 in favour of the petitioners - claimants. In the absence of any contrary evidence, the same could not be found fault with. In the absence of any contrary evidence, the same could not be found fault with. Dealing with issue No.2, the Tribunal having considered the evidence of PWs1 & 3 coupled with exhibits A5 to A7 came to the conclusion that the deceased used to earn Rs.8,000/- per month by working as a teacher in Z.P.H school, Voolapalli. In the absence of any rebuttal evidence, the said finding also could not be found fault with. For the purpose of computing compensation, the Tribunal has taken the age of the deceased as 38 years as per exhibit A2- attested copy of post mortem report and exhibit A4- attested copy of inquest report. The Tribunal, to assess the loss of dependency, has applied multiplier 16', according to the 2nd schedule of the MV Act, as the age of the deceased was 38 years by the time of her death. The Tribunal arrived at annual income of the deceased as Rs.96,000/- [Rs.8,000/- x 12], out of which 1/3rd is deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased and arrived the annual contribution of the deceased to the family @ Rs.64,000/- [Rs.96,000/- - Rs.32,000/-] and multiplied the same with multiplier 16' to arrive the annual loss of dependency @ Rs.10,24,000/- [Rs.64,000/- x 16]. In addition to that, the Tribunal granted Rs.3,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.8,000/- towards loss of consortium to the 1st petitioner, Rs.15,000/- for love and affection and mental agony, pain and suffering. The Tribunal thus granted total compensation of Rs.10,50,000/- with interest at 6% per annum on the above amount from the date of petition till realisation holding that respondents 1 & 2 are only liable to pay the above compensation amount to the petitioners. However, in view of the findings of the Tribunal in its order impugned, the Tribunal directed the 3rd respondent to deposit the compensation amount first and then recover the same from the 2nd respondent. 9. Firstly, it appears that the insurance company has not obtained permission from the Tribunal by filing application under Section 170 of the MV Act. In the absence of such permission, the insurance company is not entitled to raise defence on merits than what is available to it by way of statutory defence, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shankarayya and another v. United India Insurance Co.Ltd., and another, (1998) ACJ 513 . 10. In the absence of such permission, the insurance company is not entitled to raise defence on merits than what is available to it by way of statutory defence, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shankarayya and another v. United India Insurance Co.Ltd., and another, (1998) ACJ 513 . 10. Secondly, the contention of the appellant insurance company is that the Tribunal grossly erred in directing the insurance company to pay compensation first and recover the same from the 2nd respondent - owner of the offending auto. He submitted that it is contended before the Tribunal that as per the insurance policy conditions, the person, who drives the insured vehicle must hold effective and valid driving licence i.e., auto rickshaw-transport with badge, but at the material time of accident the 1st respondent who was driving the insured vehicle was having licence only to drive auto rickshaw-non-transport without badge, and got marked exhibit B2 - extract of driving licence of the 1st respondent issued by the Addl.licencing authority, E.G District, to prove the said aspect, and that the 1st respondent is not entitled to drive the insured vehicle which is a transport vehicle and therefore it is a clear violation of policy conditions on the part of the insured, 2nd respondent, and therefore, the 3rd respondent is not liable to pay the compensation and in support of the said contentions relied on a decision reported in 2004(6) ALT 25 . On the said aspect the Tribunal, while observing that in the present case also the 1st respondent was not having valid driving licence held that the 2nd respondent allowed the 1st respondent who is not having valid driving licence to drive the auto and thereby violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and as such it can be further held that the 3rd respondent is not liable to pay the compensation. However, the Tribunal having regard to the later part of the decision relied on by the insurance company wherein directions were given to the insurer to satisfy the awarded amount by paying the same to claimants and recover the same from insured-owner of the offending vehicle, directed the 3rd respondent insurance company to deposit the compensation amount awarded to the petitioners first and then recover the same from the insured i.e., the 2nd respondent by approaching the executing Court as held in AIR 2004 SC 1630 . 11. Dealing with the contention of the learned counsel for the insurance company that the 1st respondent is not having effective and valid driving licence to drive the offending auto at the time of accident it is profitable to refer to the decision of the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mukund Dewangan vs Oriental Ins.Co.Ltd, (2017) ACJ 2011 . As there is a conflict in the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court with respect to the legal position as to pre-amended and also the post-amendment legal position of the amendment made on 28.3.2001 in the Forms for driving licence, the following questions have been referred for decision to the larger Bench : 1. What is the meaning to be given to the definition of "light motor vehicle" as defined in Section 2(21) of the MV Act? Whether transport vehicles are excluded from it? 2. Whether 'transport vehicle' and 'omnibus' the "gross vehicle weight" of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg. would be a "light motor vehicle" and also motor car or tractor or a road roller, "unladen weight" of which does not exceed 7500 kg. and holder of a licence to drive the class of "light motor vehicle" as provided in Section 10(2)(d) would be competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the "gross vehicle weight" of which does not exceed 7500 kgs. or a motor car or tractor or road roller, the "unladen weight" of which does not exceed 7500 kgs.? 3. What is the effect of the amendment made by virtue of Act No. 54 of 1994 w.e.f. 14.11.1994 while substituting Clauses (e) to (h) of Section 10(2) which contained "medium goods vehicle", "medium passenger motor vehicle", "heavy goods vehicle" and "heavy passenger motor vehicle" by "transport vehicle"? Whether insertion of expression 'transport vehicle' Under Section 10(2)(e) is related to said substituted classes only or it also excluded transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class from the purview of Sections 10(2)(d) and 2(41) of the Act? 4. Whether insertion of expression 'transport vehicle' Under Section 10(2)(e) is related to said substituted classes only or it also excluded transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class from the purview of Sections 10(2)(d) and 2(41) of the Act? 4. What is the effect of Amendment of Form 4 as to the operation of the provisions contained in Section 10 as amended in the year 1994 and whether the procedure to obtain the driving licence for transport vehicle of the class of "Light Motor Vehicle" has been changed?" In the reference, the main question involved is whether a driver who is having a licence to drive 'light motor vehicle' and is driving 'transport vehicle' of that class is required additionally to obtain an endorsement to drive a transport vehicle? The Larger Bench, in order to answer the questions, after referring to the various provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 fortified by the syllabus and rules, answered the questions which are referred to thus: (i) 'Light motor vehicle' as defined in section 2(21) of the Act would include a transport vehicle as per the weight prescribed in section 2(21) read with section 2(15) and 2(48). Such transport vehicles are not excluded from the definition of the light motor vehicle by virtue of Amendment Act No.54/1994. (ii) A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg. would be a light motor vehicle and also motor car or tractor or a road roller, 'unladen weight' of which does not exceed 7500 kg. and holder of a driving licence to drive class of "light motor vehicle" as provided in section 10(2)(d) is competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg. or a motor car or tractor or road-roller, the "unladen weight" of which does not exceed 7500 kg. That is to say, no separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class as enumerated above. A licence issued under section 10(2)(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54/1994 and 28.3.2001 in the form. That is to say, no separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class as enumerated above. A licence issued under section 10(2)(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54/1994 and 28.3.2001 in the form. (iii) The effect of the amendment made by virtue of Act No.54/1994 w.e.f. 14.11.1994 while substituting clauses (e) to (h) of section 10(2) which contained "medium goods vehicle" in section 10(2)(e), medium passenger motor vehicle in section 10(2)(f), heavy goods vehicle in section 10(2)(g) and "heavy passenger motor vehicle" in section 10(2)(h) with expression 'transport vehicle' as substituted in section 10(2)(e) related only to the aforesaid substituted classes only. It does not exclude transport vehicle, from the purview of section 10(2)(d) and section 2(41) of the Act i.e. light motor vehicle. (iv) The effect of amendment of Form 4 by insertion of "transport vehicle" is related only to the categories which were substituted in the year 1994 and the procedure to obtain driving licence for transport vehicle of class of "light motor vehicle" continues to be the same as it was and has not been changed and there is no requirement to obtain separate endorsement to drive transport vehicle, and if a driver is holding licence to drive light motor vehicle, he can drive transport vehicle of such class without any endorsement to that effect. 12. This Court, having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of the counsel and on perusal of the record found that since there is no requirement to obtain separate endorsement to drive transport vehicle, and if a driver is holding licence to drive light motor vehicle, he can drive transport vehicle of such class without any endorsement to that effect, the contention of 3rd respondent merits no consideration. Hence, this Court came to the conclusion that the appeal filed by the 3rd respondent insurance company against the order and decree of the Tribunal is not maintainable. 13. In view of the above discussion, the order of the Tribunal directing the 3rd respondent insurance company to deposit the compensation first to the claimants and recover the same from the 2nd respondent owner of the offending auto could not be said to be illegal and arbitrary. 14. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, as there are no valid grounds, which warrant interference of this Court. 14. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, as there are no valid grounds, which warrant interference of this Court. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, in this Appeal shall stand closed.