JUDGMENT Ashok G. Nijagannavar, J. - This appeal is filed by the appellant-Insurance Company assailing the judgment and award dated 10.07.2014 passed in M.V.C. No. 3272/2012 by the II Additional Small Causes Judge & XXVIII ACMM, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal for the sake of brevity). 2. It may be stated that, this appeal is on the question of liability to pay the compensation. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their status and ranking before the Tribunal. 3. The claimants had filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation on account of the death of Shreyaswini B. in a motor vehicle accident. 4. The relevant facts stated in the petition are that on 04.11.2011, at about 2.15 p.m., when the deceased was proceeding on motor cycle bearing registration No. KA-05-HL-487 as a pillion rider on Kempegowda Road at Halasooru gate junction, Bengaluru, the Eicher goods carriage vehicle bearing registration No. KA-05-C-3226 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle. As a result of which, the petitioner fell down and succumbed to the injuries. On account of the death of the deceased, the claimants have lost financial support, love and affection and there is loss to estate. 5. On service of notice, the respondents have appeared through their counsel and filed objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. The respondent No. 1 has contended that the accident was due to the negligent riding of the rider of motor cycle. The driver of the Eicher goods carriage vehicle was not holding valid driving licence as on the date of the accident and the liability of the insurer is subject to terms and conditions of the policy. The respondent No. 2 contended that the accident did not occur due to the rash and negligent driving of the Eicher goods carriage vehicle and has disputed the death of deceased on account of the injuries sustained in the motor vehicle accident. The respondent No. 3 has contended that the accident did not occur due to the rash and negligent riding of the motor cycle and the liability of the insurer is subject to terms and conditions of the policy. 6. Based on the aforesaid pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for its consideration: i. Whether the petitioners prove that on deceased Kum. 6. Based on the aforesaid pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for its consideration: i. Whether the petitioners prove that on deceased Kum. Shreyaswini B was died in road traffic accident occurred on 04.11.2011 at about 2.15 p.m., near Kempe Gowda Road, At Halasooru Gate Junction, Bengaluru, at that time, the driver of MGV goods carriage, Eicher bearing No. KA-05-C-3226? ii. Whether the petitioners are entitled for the compensation as claimed? If so, to what extend and from whom? iii. What order? 7. 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 Eicher goods carriage vehicle and has awarded compensation of Rs. 10,23,000/- along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till deposit and directed the respondent No. 1 to satisfy the award. 8. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the appellant-Insurance Company has preferred the appeal. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the impugned judgment and award. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant -Insurance Company contends that the driving licence of the driver of the Eicher goods carriage vehicle was not endorsed for driving transport vehicle, it was only endorsed for driving light motor vehicle. Since, there was no proper endorsement in the driving licence, the Tribunal was not justified in imposing the liability on the Insurance Company to pay the compensation. 11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2/claimants submits that in view of the dicta of Honble Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., reported in AIR 2017 SC 3668 , the insurance company becomes liable to pay the compensation. As such, there are no valid grounds to interfere with the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. 12. In view of the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2/claimants, the only point that would arise for consideration is: Whether the Tribunal was justified in fixing the liability on the Insurance Company to pay the compensation? 13. 12. In view of the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2/claimants, the only point that would arise for consideration is: Whether the Tribunal was justified in fixing the liability on the Insurance Company to pay the compensation? 13. As per the submissions made by the learned counsel for both parties, the issue before this Court is whether the driver of the Eicher goods carriage vehicle should have had an endorsement in his driving licence for driving a transport vehicle. Admittedly, the vehicle involved is a medium goods vehicle. According to the contents of the Registration Certificate of the vehicle, the unladen weight of the vehicle is less than 7500 kgs. 14. The said issue is no more res integra as it has been decided by the Honble Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., reported in AIR 2017 SC 3668 . The 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. Thus, in the present case, even if there is no specific endorsement in the driving licence of the driver of the Eicher goods carriage vehicle, 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 findings given by the tribunal in fixing the liability on the insurer of the Eicher goods carriage vehicle is justified and the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant - Insurance Company is devoid of merits. 15. For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find merits in the appeal. 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. No order as to cost.