JUDGMENT : CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA, J. 1. The instant appeal is maintained by the appellants, who were petitioners/applicants before the learned Commissioner below (hereinafter referred to as “the appellants”) against the award passed by the learned Commissioner under the Workmen's compensation Act-cum-Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Kullu, H.P. in Case No. 8/2007, decided on 22.03.2010. 2. Briefly stating the facts giving right to the present appeal are that late Sh. Devi Nagar Koti was a workman, employed by respondent No. 1 herein, as Driver in her vehicle, having Registration No. HP-01A-3401, which, on 25.06.2007 met with an accident, during the course of employment of the aforesaid workman and Sh. Devi Nagar Koti died on the spot. Appellant No. 1, being the wife of the deceased and appellants No. 2 and 3, being the son and daughter, respectively, of the deceased, maintained an application under Section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1923 read with Rule 20 of the Workman Compensation Rules 1924, for the award of the compensation. On various grounds the appellants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/- (rupees ten lac) alognwith interest and penalty, as envisaged under the law. The appellants alleged that, as the vehicle was duly insured, so insurer (respondent No. 2 herein) is liable to indemnify the compensation amount. 3. The learned Commissioner below has framed the following issues: “1. Whether the deceased was a workman within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act and drawing Rs. 4,000/- p.m.? OPP 2. Whether the accident arose out of and in the course of employment with respondent No. 2? OPP 3. Whether the petitioners are the dependents of the deceased? OPP 4. Whether the vehicle was insured with the respondent No. 2? OPR-1 5. Whether the deceased was holding valid and effective license? OPR-1 6. Whether the respondents are liable to pay compensation, if yes to what extent? OPP 7. Relief.” 4. After deciding issues No. 1 to 3 in favour of the appellants, issue No. 4 in favour of respondent No. 1, issue No. 5 against respondent No. 1 and issue No. 6 in favour of the appellants, the petition was allowed and the learned Commissioner below awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,91,750/- (rupees three lac ninety one thousand seven fifty) to the appellants herein. 5. Heard. Mr. 3,91,750/- (rupees three lac ninety one thousand seven fifty) to the appellants herein. 5. Heard. Mr. Naveen Kumar Bhardwaj, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the learned Commissioner below has wrongly fastened the liability of compensation upon respondent No. 1 (owner of the vehicle in question) and it should have been on respondent No. 2 (insurer, i.e. New India Insurance Company), as the vehicle was being plied as per the terms of the insurance policy. He has further argued that the appeal may be allowed and the liability may be shifted upon respondent No. 2, as respondent No. 2 is liable to make the payment of the amount and indemnify the owner. Lastly, he has prayed that the appeal be allowed and the impugned award may be modified and compensation amount may be imposed upon respondent No. 2. On the other hand, Mr. R.L. Verma and Mr. P.P. Chauhan, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1, has argued that they have no objection in case the appeal is allowed and the liability to pay the awarded compensation is imposed upon respondent No. 2. They have further argued that the appeal may be disposed of accordingly. Conversely, Mr. B.M. Chauhan, learner Senior Counsel, for respondent No. 2 (insurer) has argued that the appeal is not maintainable, as the appellants are not aggrieved party. The appellants are only concerned with the compensation, so they have no right to say that the compensation amount should have been awarded against respondent No. 2, as it is immaterial whether they get compensation amount from respondent No. 1 or from respondent No. 2, their right to compensation is not affected in any manner. He has further argued that the appeal is misconceived and liable to be dismissed. The learned Commissioner below has rightly fastened the liability of respondent No. 1, so the appeal is not maintainable. He has further argued that the appeal lies only against the substantial question of law and as there is no substantial question of law, so the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 6. In rebuttal, Mr. Naveen Kumar Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the appellants, has argued that learned Commissioner below had ample evidence to award compensation and fasten the liability of compensation on respondent No. 2, instead of respondent No. 1. 6. In rebuttal, Mr. Naveen Kumar Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the appellants, has argued that learned Commissioner below had ample evidence to award compensation and fasten the liability of compensation on respondent No. 2, instead of respondent No. 1. However, the learned Commissioner below has failed to give findings with regard to the nature of the vehicle and the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, viz-a-viz the evidence adduced by the parties was neither discussed nor considered by the learned Commissioner below, so the findings are perverse and the appeal is liable to be remanded back to the learned Commissioner below for adjudicating the case afresh on the above mentioned aspect of the case. He has argued that the appeal is maintainable in view of a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Om Parkash Batish vs. Ranjit alias Ranbir Kaur, (2008) 12 SCC 212 . 7. To appreciate the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the record in detail. 8. At the very outset, it would be profitable to mention that on 23.02.2011 a Coordinate Bench of this Court admitted the instant appeal for hearing on the following substantial question of law: “Whether the impugned award is not sustainable in the eyes of law and deserves to be modified because the liability has wrongly been imposed on the owner instead of insurance company?” 9. However, while carefully scrutinizing the records and hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, this Court reframes the substantial question of law as under: Whether the findings given by the learned Commissioner below are without any reasons, without discussing the evidence on record, as far as the nature of the vehicle is concerned, without appreciating the law and are such that no reasonable person will come to that conclusion, thus perverse? 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Om Parkash Batish vs. Ranjit Alias Ranbir Kaur, (2008) 12 SCC 212 , held in Paras 15 and 16 as under: “15. The right to file an appeal is a statutory right. Parliament may not provide such a right at all. The right to file an appeal can be hedged with conditions. A limited right can also be conferred. 16. A right of appeal under the Act is provided, both to the management as also the workman. The right to file an appeal is a statutory right. Parliament may not provide such a right at all. The right to file an appeal can be hedged with conditions. A limited right can also be conferred. 16. A right of appeal under the Act is provided, both to the management as also the workman. It is difficult to hold that whereas for the workman the High Court shall exercise a wider jurisdiction but in the event of the employer is the appellant, its jurisdiction would be limited. The High Court unfortunately proceeded on the basis that appreciation of evidence also would give rise to a substantial question of law.” 11. The above judgment is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case, as this Court is also of the view that the right to file an appeal is a statutory right and such a right is provided both to the management as also to the workman equally. 12. Admittedly, the only concern of the claimant is to get the compensation, either from the insurer or from the owner. This Court cannot accept the argument, as advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants that the learned Commissioner below erred in determining that liability to pay the compensation towards the appellants is of respondent No. 1 (owner) and not respondent No. 2 (insurer). By advancing such an argument, it seems that the appellants are not aggrieved by the impugned award, but they are aggrieved that insurer is not saddled with the liability to pay the compensation. This argument is discarded by holding that in that case, as argued by the learned counsel for the appellants, the owner (respondent No. 1) should have filed an appeal, if she is aggrieved by the decision of the learned Commissioner below. 13. Be that as it may. This Court without digging deep into the controversy, feels to first examine Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which provides the definition of “light motor vehicle.” For the sake of ready reference, Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is extracted hereunder: “2(21) light motor vehicle” means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicles weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road-roller the un-laden weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500] kilograms.” 14. Now, a perusal of the Registration Certificate of the vehicles in question clearly shows that its un-laden weight was 1700 kgs and it was a maxi cab. 15. A plain reading of the impugned award shows that the learned Commissioner below mainly fastened the liability of compensation on respondent No. 1 (owner), as The learned Commissioner found that the deceased was holding driving licence for driving light motor vehicle only, so he was not possessing a valid driving licence to drive the vehicle in question. To this effect, the relevant excerpts of the impugned judgment are reproduced hereunder for the sake of ready reference: “I have heard the arguments of the learned counsels for the parties and also carefully perused the evidence placed on record. The deceased was holding driving licence for driving Light Motor Vehicle only and this fact has not been contested by any party. The vehicle in question was a light transport vehicle (maxi cab), registered as a tourist vehicle having all India tourist permit from the State Transport Authority H.P. Shimla (No. 68 dated 9.3.2004). As such the deceased did not possess a valid licence to drive this kind of vehicle as on the date of accident. I do not find the citation placed on record by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 relevant in this instant case which referred to a case of light goods vehicle. I am therefore of the considered view that the driver of the vehicle was not holding a valid and effective license to drive the vehicle in question which was a light transport vehicle, a contract carriage and as such inclined to decide this issue in favour of respondent No. 2.” 16. Thus, the learned Commissioner below by holding that the deceased did not possess a valid licence to drive the vehicle in question, which was a light transport vehicle (maxi (cab), registered as a tourist vehicle having all India tourist permit from the State Transport Authority H.P. Shimla, fastened the liability to pay the compensation on respondent No. 1 (owner), instead of respondent No. 2 (insurer). 17. Now, this Court has to see whether the above ground of fastening the liability upon the owner is valid and the same is sustainable in the eyes of law or not? 17. Now, this Court has to see whether the above ground of fastening the liability upon the owner is valid and the same is sustainable in the eyes of law or not? In order to examine this issue, this Court carefully scrutinized a verdict of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2017) 14 SCC 663 : AIR 2017 SC 3668 , wherein it is held that a driver, holding light motor vehicle licence, can drive all vehicles of class, including the transport vehicles and no separate endorsement required to drive such transport vehicles. Though the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment (supra) exhaustively and minutely examined the above issue and other important ancillary issues, however, only relevant excerpts, relating to the point involved herein, are extracted hereunder for the sake of ready reference: “14. The definition of ‘light motor vehicle’ makes it clear that for a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road-roller the un-laden weight of any of which, does not exceed 7500 kgs. ‘Gross vehicle weight’ has been defined in section 2(15). The motor car or tractor or road roller, the un-laden weight of any of which does not exceed 7500 kgs. as defined in section 2(48) of the Act, are also the light motor vehicle. No change has been made by Amendment Act of 54/94 in the provisions contained in sections 2(21) and 10(2)(d) relating to the light motor vehicle. The definition of ‘light motor vehicle’ has to be given full effect to and it has to be read with section 10(2)(d) which makes it abundantly clear that ‘light motor vehicle’ is also a ‘transport vehicle’ the gross vehicle weight or un-laden weight of which does not exceed 7500 kgs. as specified in the provision. Thus, a driver is issued a licence as per the class of vehicle i.e. light motor vehicle, transport vehicle or omnibus or another vehicle of other categories as per gross vehicle weight or un-laden weight as specified in section 2(21) of the Act. The provision of section 3 of the Act requires that a person in order to drive a ‘transport vehicle’ must have authorization. The provision of section 3 of the Act requires that a person in order to drive a ‘transport vehicle’ must have authorization. Once a licence is issued to drive light motor vehicle, it would also mean specific authorization to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight or motor car, road roller or tractor, the un-laden weight of which, as the case may be, does not exceed 7500 kg. The insertion of ‘transport vehicle’ category in section 10(2)(e) has no effect of obliterating the already defined category of transport vehicles of the class of light motor vehicle. A distinction is made in the Act of heavy goods vehicle, heavy passenger motor vehicle, medium goods vehicle and medium passenger motor vehicle on the basis of ‘gross vehicle weight’ or ‘un-laden weight’ for heavy passenger motor vehicle, heavy goods vehicle, the weight, as the case may be, exceed 12000 kg. Medium goods vehicle shall mean any goods carriage other than a light motor vehicle or a heavy goods vehicle; whereas ‘medium passenger motor vehicle’ means any public service vehicle or private service vehicle or educational institution bus other than a motorcycle, invalid carriage, light motor vehicle or heavy passenger motor vehicle. Thus, the newly incorporated expression ‘transport vehicle’ in section 10(2)(e) would include only the vehicles of the category as defined in section 2(16) - heavy goods vehicle, section 2(17) - heavy passenger motor vehicle, section 2(23) medium goods vehicle and section 2(24) medium passenger motor vehicle, and would not include the ‘light motor vehicle’ which means transport vehicle also of the weight specified in Section 2(21). ...................... 46. Section 10 of the Act requires a driver to hold a licence with respect to the class of vehicles and not with respect to the type of vehicles. In one class of vehicles, there may be different kinds of vehicles. If they fall in the same class of vehicles, no separate endorsement is required to drive such vehicles. As light motor vehicle includes transport vehicle also, a holder of light motor vehicle licence can drive all the vehicles of the class including transport vehicles. It was pre-amended position as well the post-amended position of Form 4 as amended on 28.3.2001. If they fall in the same class of vehicles, no separate endorsement is required to drive such vehicles. As light motor vehicle includes transport vehicle also, a holder of light motor vehicle licence can drive all the vehicles of the class including transport vehicles. It was pre-amended position as well the post-amended position of Form 4 as amended on 28.3.2001. Any other interpretation would be repugnant to the definition of “light motor vehicle” in section 2(21) and the provisions of section 10(2)(d), Rule 8 of the Rules of 1989, other provisions and also the forms which are in tune with the provisions. Even otherwise the forms never intended to exclude transport vehicles from the category of ‘light motor vehicles’ and for light motor vehicle, the validity period of such licence hold good and apply for the transport vehicle of such class also and the expression in Section 10(2)(e) of the Act ‘Transport Vehicle’ would include medium goods vehicle, medium passenger motor vehicle, heavy goods vehicle, heavy passenger motor vehicle which earlier found place in section 10(2)(e) to (h) and our conclusion is fortified by the syllabus and rules which we have discussed. Thus we answer the questions which are referred to us 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, ‘un-laden 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 “un-laden 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.” 18. Indeed the judgment (supra) is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case and after having perused the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, relevant excerpts whereof have been extracted hereinabove, this Court is of the opinion that the matter needs to be remanded back to the learned Commissioner below to render its decision afresh keeping in view the above judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in mind. 19. In view of the above, the only substantial question of law, as framed by this Court, is answered holding that the learned Commissioner below has rendered findings without reasonable basis and without appreciating the law on the subject, so the findings are perverse. Resultantly, the instant petition is disposed of and the matter is remanded back to the learned Commissioner below to decide the impugned award afresh, in view of the judgment (supra) of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Pending applications, if any, shall also stands disposed of. 20. Resultantly, the instant petition is disposed of and the matter is remanded back to the learned Commissioner below to decide the impugned award afresh, in view of the judgment (supra) of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Pending applications, if any, shall also stands disposed of. 20. As the matter is more than a decade old, so it is expected from the learned Commissioner below to dispose of the matter within a period of three months from the date of receipt of records of this case. 21. The Registry is directed to forthwith send the records of this case to the learned Commissioner below, so as to reach well before 7th October, 2021. 22. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Commissioner below on 7th October, 2021.