JUDGMENT : These are the two Appeals from Order. 2. The Appeal from Order No.400 of 2010, which has been preferred by the owner of the offending vehicle bearing Registration No.UA07T 6690, is under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, and the Appeal from Order No.193 of 2011, has been preferred by the National Insurance Company, by invoking the provisions contained under Section 30 of the Workman Compensation Act, 1923. However, since in both the matters, they are emanating from a same set of incident and involves common facts, hence for the purposes of brevity, they are been decided together. 3. The matter was heard at length yesterday, and it was placed today for the dictation of judgment. 4. The brief facts, which engage consideration in the present cases are that the challenge as given in the Appeal from Orders, is to the award dated 29th September 2010, which was rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, in MACP No.33 of 2009, “Smt. Beena & others Vs. Neelkanth & others”. Factually it chanced so, that an accident had occurred on 30th May, 2009, whereby one late Mr. Parvesh Prasad, who was the husband of the claimant No.1, and the father of the claimant No.2, and the son of claimant Nos.3 and 4, who at the relevant time was traveling in the Maxi Cab bearing Registration No.UA07T-6690, it was alleged that on account of a rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the Driver of the offending vehicle i.e. Neeraj Chamoli, the vehicle has met with an accident resulting into the death of late Mr.Parvesh Prasad Chamoli. It was contended that the deceased was travelling from Bhagirathi Puram to his Village Pangarkhal, via Patta motor road, at the time when the accident chanced on 30th May 2009 at 9:00 p.m. and the deceased is said to be and was also found to be of 24 years of age on the date of the accident. 5. The claimants have come up with a case in the claim petition; that the deceased was engaged as a motor mechanic, and was also having a private business owing to his aforesaid engagements, he used to earn about Rs.8,000/- per month, and thus they have assessed their claim of Rupees Ten Lakh, to be awarded to them. 5. The claimants have come up with a case in the claim petition; that the deceased was engaged as a motor mechanic, and was also having a private business owing to his aforesaid engagements, he used to earn about Rs.8,000/- per month, and thus they have assessed their claim of Rupees Ten Lakh, to be awarded to them. In the claim petition, the notices were issued, the opposite party No.1, i.e. the owner of the vehicle filed his written statement being paper No.16 (kha), wherein he admitted that he is the owner of the offending vehicle; he admitted the fact that the accident did chanced on 30th May, 2009, but he submitted that the accident has chanced on account of a mechanical fault, which has occurred in the vehicle in question, due to which the Driver of the vehicle lost his control over it, and which fell into a ditch, resulting into the death of the Driver as well as of Mr. Parvesh Prasad, the husband of the claimant. Both of them died on the spot. 6. The Insurance Company, the appellant of AO No.193 of 2011, too filed the written statement being paper No.22 (kha), and the Insurance Company have admitted the fact, that the offending vehicle was insured with them, but they made endeavour to carve out an exception to disown their liability, to the probable compensation which could be levied on the determination, to be made by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, on the ground that the Driver of the vehicle at the relevant point of time, didn’t had a valid licence, and apart from that, the vehicle was being plied in violation of the terms of the insurance policy and the conditions given, therein, and the vehicle didn’t had a valid permit and fitness certificate, which was one of the pre-conditions provided under the insurance policy conditions in order to harness a liability on the Insurance Company for the remittance of any probable compensation to be determined by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal. On the exchange of the pleadings, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, had formulated the following issues in MACP Case No.33 of 2009, which are extracted hereunder:- ^^5- mHk; i{kks ds vfHkopuksa ds vk/kkj ij fuEu okn fcUnq fojfpr fd;s x;s& 1. On the exchange of the pleadings, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, had formulated the following issues in MACP Case No.33 of 2009, which are extracted hereunder:- ^^5- mHk; i{kks ds vfHkopuksa ds vk/kkj ij fuEu okn fcUnq fojfpr fd;s x;s& 1. Whether the accident took place at about 9 p.m. on 30.05.2009 at Pangarkha-Pata motor road, within P.S. New Tehri, District Tehri Garhwal due to the rash and negligent driving of vehicle No.UA07T-6690 Max Cab (Tata Sumo) by its driver causing the death of Pravesh Prasad Chamoli as alleged? 2. Whether on the date of the accident the driver of vehicle in question was not having valid driving license and the owner did not possess valid permit and fitness etc., of his vehicle as alleged by insurance company OP No.2, in its written statement? Its effect? 3. To what amount compensation, if any, and from which of the opposite parties are the petitioners entitled? 7. In Appeal from Order No.193 of 2011, where the claim was preferred under Sections 4/10 of the Workmen Compensation Act by way of W.C.C No.16 of 2009, the points of determination, which was framed by the learned Workman Compensation Commissioner, Tehri vide its order dated 10th March 2010, read as under:- ^^1&Dk oknhx.k dk iq= /khjt peksyh foi{kh la0&1 okgu Lokeh ds okgu la[;k&;w0,0&07&Vh&6690 VkVk lweks ij pkyd ds rkSj ij fnukad&30&05&09 dks fu;ksftr Fkk\ 2&Dk fnukad&30&05&09 dks jk=h lsokdky ds nkSjku lokjh ysdj ikaxj[kky&ikVk eksVj ekxZ ij tkrs le; okgu esa rduhdh [kjkch vkus ls nq?kZVukxzLr gksus ds QyLo:Ik pkyd dh e`R;q ?kVukLFky ij gks xbZ Fkh\ 3&nq?kZVuk dh frfFk dks e`rd pkyd dh vk;q o osru D;k Fkh\ 4&Dk nq?kZVuk ds le; nq?kZVukxzLr mDr okgu ¼VkVklweks½ ds lHkh dkxtkr ¼vkj0lh0] ijfeV] fQVusl chek vkfn½ oS/k Fks vkSj pkyd ds ikl oS/k MªkbZfoax ykbZlsUl Fkk\ 5& D;k oknhx.k foi{khx.k ls fdlh izdkj dh {kfriwfrZ ikus ds vf/kdkjh gS] ;fn gkW rks {kfriwfrZ Hkqxrku dk nkf;Ro fdldk gS\^^ 8. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in Appeal from Order No.193 of 2011, had primarily harped upon his argument from the pretext that no liability, could have been fastened upon them, because the offending vehicle in question, which was involved in the accident, was being plied in contravention to the terms of the insurance policy as well as it was plied in violation of the permit conditions, which was granted to the vehicle. 9. The parties lead their respective evidence. The claimant had appeared in the witness box and had recorded his statement as PW1, and apart from that, the claimant has also placed reliance upon the documentary evidences in support of her claim and contentions, which included the First Information Report i.e. paper No.5 (ga), the panchnama, the postmortem report, the family register, in order to establish the fact of dependency, the insurance documents and various other documents, filed with the list of documents placed before the court below in order to show their dependency and their liability and to establish the fact that the deceased was having an income of Rs.8,000/- per month on account of the engagement, as it has been already referred above. 10. As far as the owner of the offending vehicle is concerned, he appeared in the witness box and recorded his statement as DW1, and in the documentary evidences, which were produced by him, as list paper No.31 (ga), it included with it, the registration documents being paper No. 34 (ga), and the xerox copy of the permit of the vehicle paper No.34 (ga) too. 11. But so far as the Insurance Company is concerned, the Insurance Company has not lead any oral evidence before the court below, except for the fact that in the written statement, which they have filed before the court below, they have only made references and narration to the terms and conditions of the permit, in order to fortify and substantiate their stand, that the liability ought not to be harnessed upon them. In the proceedings, which was held under Section 4 of the Workmen Compensation Act, which is the subject matter of the Appeal from Order No.193 of 2011, and in the nature of the issues, which has been formulated therein, which has already been extracted above, which is taken into consideration in fact the prime concern and the burden which was supposed to be discharged for paying the compensation was by the Insurance Company to fortify the fact that on the date of the accident i.e. 30th May 2009, the offending vehicle was not being plied in terms of the licence or the permit, the burden was supposed to be discharged by the Insurance Company itself who were raising their plea by way of defence, but having failed to do so, the learned Workman Compensation Commissioner, Tehri, has recorded a finding to the effect that in fact no efforts whatsoever has been made by the Insurance Company to lead any oral evidence or a documentary evidence in support of their contentions. 12. Consequently, while dealing with the respective arguments, and particularly, the findings, which has been recorded while deciding issue No.4, which was primarily harped upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the Insurance Company, was in relation to, as to whether the vehicle was being plied with the valid documents or not! The very concept of argument of the Insurance Company, was from the prospective of the scrutinization of the Insurance Policy No.461006, which was valid and effective from 26th September 2008 to 25th September 2009, apart from that the registration certificate and the fitness certificate of the offending vehicle too was also valid till 27th September 2009, and particularly, the consideration, which was argued by the learned Senior Counsel, was with regards to the scrutinization of the permit No.3578/ST/Max/UA07, which as per the records was valid till 17th December 2012. The Insurance Company had argued, and which was almost a similar argument which was extended by the owner of the vehicle too, that the driving licence, which the deceased Dhiraj, had at the time when the accident has chanced, since it didn’t had any endorsement of the hill driving permission, the liability could not be fastened upon the owner of the vehicle, in fact, this contention that the driving licence of the Driver Late Mr. Dhiraj, was not having hill driving endorsement, it runs contrary to the pre laid down principles, that as per the provisions contained under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicle Act, and also as per the precedents where it has been laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, as well as by this Court too, that under the provisions contained under the Motor Vehicle Act, there is no specific stipulations, that there has had to be any independent endorsement in the driving licence of the vehicle to show that the driving was permissible for a hill driving. 13. Consequent to, for the purposes of determining the compensation under the Workmen Compensation Act, qua the claimants, therein, i.e. the mother and father of the deceased Driver Dhiraj, the learned Labour Workman Compensation Commissioner had rightly come to the assessment of damages which would be payable to the dependents of the deceased, after considering the argument and the documents, which was placed on record before the court below observing thereof, that by virtue of the implications of Section 149 of the Act, too would only come into play where there happens to be violation of the terms of the insurance policy, but since the terms of the insurance policy had not been violated, the liability towards the payment of the compensation to the workman deceased driver would have to be borne by the Insurance Company, and accordingly the claim petition filed before the Labour Commissioner by way of Claim Petition No.16 of 2009, “Poornanand Chamoli & another Vs. Neelkanth & others”, was rightly decreed in favour of the claimants, who were the parents of the deceased Driver, assessing the damages payable to an amount of Rs.4,30,560/- along with an interest at the rate of 12%, wef date of presentation of claim i.e. 18.11.2009, till the date of actual payment. 14. Owing to the fact that the Insurance Company the appellant of AO No.193 of 2011, has not discharge their responsibilities of effectively establishing, the fact beyond reasonable doubt that the vehicle was being plied in contravention to the terms of the Insurance Policy or in terms of the permit, which was granted in favour of the owner of the offending vehicle. The insurance company couldn’t have shied away from their liability of remitting the amount of compensation, which has been determined by the Workman Compensation Commissioner, as per the provisions of Sections 4/ 10 of the Workmen Compensation Act. Hence, the Appeal from Order as filed by the Insurance Company lacks merit, and the same is accordingly dismissed. 15. Reverting back to the Appeal from Order, which has been preferred by the owner of the offending vehicle, being AO No.400 of 2010, it was the judgment, which was rendered by the court of Additional District Judge, Tehri Garhwal/MACT on 23rd September 2010, in which the claimants have been awarded with the compensation of Rs.4,44,000/- but precisely the factual backdrop, and the parameters of determination, which has been made by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, to the issues, which was formulated and were the subject matter of consideration, had been determined, and particularly, the concern of finding, which has been recorded would be in relation to the findings recorded pertaining to the issue No.2, which was related to, as to whether the offending vehicle was being plied in accordance with the terms of the permit and if not then who has to bear the liability for the payment of the compensation to the claimants? The learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal in its findings, which had been recorded in paragraph Nos.16 and 18, after appreciating the evidence has observed, that as far as the driving licence being paper No.30 (ga) is concerned, which was issued in favour of late Mr. Dhiraj, who was the driver of the offending vehicle, was validly issued by the Transport Authorities at Delhi, and the same was valid from 10th May 2002 till 9th May 2022. It has also been observed, therein, that as per the provisions contained under Section 193 of the Motor Vehicle Act, no independent endorsement is required as per law, which was required to be made in the driving licence of the Driver, who is plying the public transport vehicle. It has also been observed, therein, that as per the provisions contained under Section 193 of the Motor Vehicle Act, no independent endorsement is required as per law, which was required to be made in the driving licence of the Driver, who is plying the public transport vehicle. However, the stand taken by the Insurance Company while assessing the contents of the permit i.e. paper No.40 (ga), the xerox copy of which was placed on record, it has been relied by the Insurance Company, the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, has observed in its paragraph No.19 of the judgment, that as per the terms of the permit, what was expected that when the driver is being engaged by the owner of the vehicle, he ought to have 5 years of experience of driving the vehicle. Since the driver of the vehicle was issued with the licence on 21st November 2005 and accident has chanced on 30th May 2009, the learned Tribunal has observed that the vehicle was not being plied as per the terms of the permit, where the driver, who is engaged to ply the vehicle was suppose to have a 5 years of experience, and owing to the fact and the stipulations contained under that permit, once the owner has permitted the Driver having lesser experience than five years, then the liability has to be fastened upon the owner of the vehicle only, as the owner of the vehicle cannot take advantage of his own wrong, for shifting the liability. Accordingly, the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal vide its award dated 23rd September 2010, has awarded a compensation of Rs.4,44,000/-, which has been made payable to the claimants along with interest at the rate of 5% simple interest from the date of the filing of the application for claims and till the date of actual payment. 16. Learned counsel for the appellant has made a reference and relied upon to the judgment as reported in 2017 volume (14 SCC) page 663, “Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited”, and particularly, he had made a reference to paragraph No.55, of the judgment, which is extracted hereunder:- “55. Section 10(2)(a) to (j) lays down the classes of vehicles to be driven, not a specific kind of motor vehicles in that class. Oriental Insurance Company Limited”, and particularly, he had made a reference to paragraph No.55, of the judgment, which is extracted hereunder:- “55. Section 10(2)(a) to (j) lays down the classes of vehicles to be driven, not a specific kind of motor vehicles in that class. If a vehicle falls into any of the categories, a licence holder holding licence to drive the class of vehicle can drive all vehicles of that particular class. No separate endorsement is to be obtained nor provided, if the vehicle falls in any of the particular classes of Section 10(2). This Court has rightly observed in Nagashetty (supra) that in case submission to the contrary is accepted, then every time an owner of a private car, who has a licence to drive a light motor vehicle, attaches a roof carrier to his car or a trailer to his car and carries goods thereon, the light motor vehicle would become a transport vehicle and the owner would be deemed to have no licence to drive that vehicle. It would lead to absurd results. Merely because a trailer is added either to a tractor or to a motor vehicle it by itself does not mean that driver ceased to have valid driving licence. In our considered opinion, even if such a vehicle is treated as transport vehicle of the light motor vehicle class, legal position would not change and driver would still have a valid driving licence to drive transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class, whether it is a transport vehicle or a private car/tractor attached with trolley or used for carrying goods in the form of transport vehicle. The ultimate conclusion in Nagashetty (supra) is correct, however, for the reasons as explained by us.” 17. The ultimate conclusion in Nagashetty (supra) is correct, however, for the reasons as explained by us.” 17. In order to substantiate his argument, that the fastening of their liability on the owner of the vehicle, due to the violation of the terms of the permit, on account of non engagement of an experienced driver, which was mandated in it, in fact the burden cannot be shifted, and the ultimate conclusion which has been drawn in paragraph No.55, if that is being sought to be attracted in the circumstances of the instant case, if the authority, which has been relied by the learned counsel for the appellant of AO No.400 of 2010, is itself taken into consideration in pith and substance, the issue which was the subject matter of the consideration in the said case before the Hon’ble Apex Court, which was in fact arising out of a referred decision, of the Larger Bench on the question which was seeking an answer, as to how the distinction would be drawn with regards to the light motor vehicle as defined under Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicle Act, whether the transport vehicle would be excluded from its ambit, and secondly it was a percept, which was being considered by the Apex Court, whether the transport vehicle or the Omni bus, would fall to be a class of light motor vehicle as provided under section 10(2) (d) of the Act, would be competent to drive a transport vehicle or the Omni bus, as one of the essential ingredients pertaining to the depending upon the weightage of the vehicle in its unladen weight. This is in fact not the controversy at all involve in this case, nor was a case ever attempted to be argued, by any party before the tribunal concerned. Thus the question involved therein is alien to the present case, and its circumstances. 18. This is in fact not the controversy at all involve in this case, nor was a case ever attempted to be argued, by any party before the tribunal concerned. Thus the question involved therein is alien to the present case, and its circumstances. 18. In view of the backdrop under which the Hon’ble Apex Court has recorded its finding in paragraph No.55, while interpreting the implications of Section 10 (2) (a) (d) of the Act, this Court is of the view that since this was not an issue or even the subject matter, which was at all involved consideration before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal nor it was a case which was ever agitated to be answered by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal and hence this judgment would be of no avail to the appellant of AO No.400 of 2010. 19. Apart from above arguments, no other point or issue has been argued by the counsel for the appellants. Hence, the Appeal from Order lacks merit, and the same is accordingly dismissed.