JUDGMENT : Dhiraj Singh Thakur, J. The present appeal has been filed in terms of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Srinagar (for short, ‘Tribunal’) dated 31/10/2018. 2. Briefly stated the material facts are as under: 3. A claim petition came to be filed by the respondents No. 2 and 3 before the Tribunal, claiming compensation on account of death of one Aabid Bashir Wani, the son of the respondents on account of a vehicular accident caused due to the alleged rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle (Tipper) bearing registration No. JK16/4098 on 11.12.2013. Incidentally, the driver of the offending vehicle is also the owner of the offending vehicle. 4. In response to the claim petition, defences were taken by the owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle as also the insurance company-appellant herein. While the owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle denied any rash and negligent driving as was alleged against him, the insurance company claimed violation of the policy conditions as also the statutory provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. 5. The stand of the insurance company before the Tribunal was that the owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle was plying the vehicle in question without a valid driving licence and without any route permit issued from the registering authority. Insofar as the driving licence is concerned, it was stated, that the driver of the offending vehicle only possessed a licence to ply a light motor vehicle and not a heavy goods vehicle in the shape of a Tipper. In regard to the route permit, it was stated that on the date of the accident, the vehicle was not at all registered and was being plied without a route permit. 6. Based upon the pleadings, the Tribunal inter alia framed two issues in which issue No. 2 was with regard to whether the vehicle was being driven without a valid effective driving licence and other vehicular documents like Registration Certificate/Route Permit etc. and whether the owner-cum-driver had committed any breach of the conditions of the insurance policy. 7. Evidence was led by the parties and the Tribunal finally allowed the claim petition, granting compensation to the tune of Rs. and whether the owner-cum-driver had committed any breach of the conditions of the insurance policy. 7. Evidence was led by the parties and the Tribunal finally allowed the claim petition, granting compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,61,700/- along with simple interest @ 6.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till realization in favour of the petitioners and against the insurance company. 8. On the issue of the validity of the driving licence, the Tribunal held that the driver of the offending vehicle was possessed of a valid driving licence on the date of the accident, which was issued on 14.8.2004 by the licencing authority at the Motor Vehicles Department, Jammu and was valid uptill 14.1.2017. The Tribunal appears to have placed reliance upon the testimony of the Administrative officer, who was produced by the Insurance company and the verification report submitted by him and held, based upon the verification report, that the driver was authorized to drive a heavy goods vehicle. Insofar as the route permit of the vehicle is concerned, the Tribunal held, based upon the testimony of a witness from the office of the ARTO Ganderbal, that even when the route permit of the offending vehicle was issued on 21.1.2014 by the office of the RTO, yet retrospective effect was given to the said certificate by imposing a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and thus, held insurance company liable. 9. In the present appeal, the appellant-insurance company is aggrieved of the judgment and award on the aforementioned two issues. It was urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal had totally misapplied itself to the facts, the evidence on record and the law on the subject while returning a finding on the two issues referred to hereinabove. In the present appeal, the appellant-insurance company is aggrieved of the judgment and award on the aforementioned two issues. It was urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal had totally misapplied itself to the facts, the evidence on record and the law on the subject while returning a finding on the two issues referred to hereinabove. Insofar as the driving licence is concerned, it was urged that although the driving licence was issued, as far back as on 2004 and was valid upto 2017, the endorsement for plying a heavy goods vehicle was incorporated after the date of the accident and insofar as the issue of route permit is concerned, it was stated that on the date of the accident, admittedly the vehicle in question was being plied without any such registration, which also constituted a violation of the specific provisions of Section 81 of the Motor Vehicles Act, besides violating the terms and conditions of the policy, which permitted plying of the vehicle only under a permit within the meaning of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It was, therefore, prayed that having committed a breach of the statutory provisions of the Act, as also the policy condition, the insurance company could not have been held liable. Counsel for the respondents-claimants on the other hand reiterated the defence as was taken before the Tribunal. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 11. The first issue that requires consideration is whether the driver of the offending vehicle was possessed of a valid driving licence, which would have authorized him to ply the truck (Tipper) in question. 12. While the stand of the insurance company is that the driver of the offending vehicle was only possessed of a licence, which authorized him to drive a light motor vehicle and that the endorsement to ply heavy goods vehicle was made after the date of the accident, the Tribunal appears to have relied upon the verification report produced by the witness of the insurance company as has already been discussed above. 13. The issue whether a person holding a light motor vehicle licence is authorized to drive a heavy goods vehicle is no longer res integra. In Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2017) 14 SCC 663 , the Apex Court in paragraph 59 held thus: 59. 13. The issue whether a person holding a light motor vehicle licence is authorized to drive a heavy goods vehicle is no longer res integra. In Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2017) 14 SCC 663 , the Apex Court in paragraph 59 held thus: 59. 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. 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. 60. Thus we answer the questions which are referred to us thus: 60.1 ‘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. 60.2 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. 60.2 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. 60.3 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. 60.4 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.” 14. On a reading of the aforementioned judgment, it thus becomes clear that a person possessing a light motor vehicle licence would also be authorized to ply a transport vehicle without any separate endorsement provided the gross vehicle weight of the said transport vehicle does not exceed 7500/- kgms. On a reading of the aforementioned judgment, it thus becomes clear that a person possessing a light motor vehicle licence would also be authorized to ply a transport vehicle without any separate endorsement provided the gross vehicle weight of the said transport vehicle does not exceed 7500/- kgms. In the present case, from the documents on record, it appears that the gross vehicle weight of the Tipper (offending vehicle) was 16,200/- kgms and therefore, a light motor vehicle licence would not authorize the driver to ply the vehicle in question without a specific endorsement from the licensing authority to ply the vehicle in question in that regard. 15. While the verification report does suggest that the licence did authorize the driver to ply a heavy goods vehicle, yet admittedly the endorsement by the licensing authority came much after the date of the accident. It, thus, becomes clear that on the date when the accident took place, the driver of the vehicle was only authorized to ply a light motor vehicle and not a transport vehicle like a Tipper, which is a offending vehicle in the present case whose gross laden weight exceeded 7500 kgms. 16. The second issue that is required to be considered is whether the insurance company is not liable in view of the fact the vehicle in question was being driven without any route permit on the date of the accident. It is the admitted case of the parties that on the date of the accident, the vehicle in question was not having the route permit issued from the registering authority. It appears that the registering authority much after the date of the accident, by imposing a penalty, gave retrospective route permit registration to the vehicle in question. The Tribunal had placed reliance upon that document to say that the vehicle was properly registered and therefore, there was no violation either the terms and conditions of the policy or the Motor Vehicles Act. 17. Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act specifically prohibits an owner of the motor vehicle to use or permit the use of the vehicle as a transport vehicle in any public place except in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or counter signed by Regional or a State Transport Authority, authorizing the use of such a vehicle. 17. Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act specifically prohibits an owner of the motor vehicle to use or permit the use of the vehicle as a transport vehicle in any public place except in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or counter signed by Regional or a State Transport Authority, authorizing the use of such a vehicle. Section 81 of the Act specifically provides that a permit other than a temporary permit issued under Section 87 or a special permit issued under sub section 8 of Section 88 shall be effective from the date of issuance or renewal thereof. 18. In the present case, there was no route permit issued by the registering authority on the date of the accident and in terms of Section 81, the route permit could have been granted only from the date of its issuance and could not have been granted retrospectively as it would fly in the face of Section 81, therefore, the finding recorded by the Tribunal on this aspect is untenable in law. 19. Having considered the entire matter, in my opinion, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable for payment in terms of the Award in favour of the claimants. However, applying the principle of ‘pay and recover’, the insurance company is directed to pay the awarded amount to the claimants with liberty to recover the same from the owner/driver. 20. Disposed of accordingly.