JUDGMENT : R.M. Chhaya, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and award dated 19.01.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux), Gondal at Dhoraji in MACP No. 1184 of 2000, the insurance company has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). 2. Following facts emerge from the record of the appeal- 2.1 It is the case of the respondent-original claimants that the deceased Dineshbhai had hired rickshaw bearing registration no. GJ-V-3709 to sell his vegetables from Supedi to Mahuva. It is the case of the respondents-original claimants that when the said rickshaw reached near Manekvada Ghatiyan at about 5.00 PM, the rickshaw turned turtle because of the rash and negligent driving of the rickshaw and the deceased Dineshbhai sustained serious injuries and succumbed on the spot. An FIR was lodged with the jurisdictional police station at exhibit 33 and the present claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/-. 2.2 It was the case of the claimants that the deceased was earning Rs. 5,000/- p.m. on the date of the accident. The wife of the deceased Shantaben was examined at exhibit 29 and the claimant also relied upon plethora of documentary evidence such as FIR at exhibit 33, Inquest panchnama at exhibit 34, panchnama at exhibit 35, PM report of the deceased at exhibit 36, RC book of the offending vehicle at exhibit 37, certificate of the driver from RTO at exhibit 38, insurance policy of the rickshaw at exhibit 39. The Tribunal considered the plea raised by the appellant-insurance company that the driver of the offending vehicle had license to drive a three wheeler, which was not meant to drive a transport vehicle and as the driver was driving a auto-rickshaw, delivery van, he had no valid license as there was no such endorsement in the license. Relying upon the certificate of the RTO at exhibit 38, the appellant contended that there was no valid subsisting license and therefore contended that the appellant-insurance company was not liable to indemnify the claimants and contended that the insurance company deserves to be exonerated. The Tribunal considered the income of the deceased at Rs. 4,500/- and after deducting 1/3rd of the amount towards personal expenses, applying multiplier of 16, awarded a sum of Rs. The Tribunal considered the income of the deceased at Rs. 4,500/- and after deducting 1/3rd of the amount towards personal expenses, applying multiplier of 16, awarded a sum of Rs. 5,76,000/- as compensation under the head of Future Loss of income and also further awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/- under different conventional heads and thus, while partly allowing the claim petition, awarded a sum of Rs. 6,01,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition and also further ordered and directed the appellant-insurance company to deposit the amount as awarded within a period of 1 month with interest and permitted the appellant to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant-insurance company has preferred the present appeal. 3. Heard Dr. Vrushang Mehta, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. Tushar L. Sheth, learned advocate for the original claimants. Though served, no one appears for the other parties. I have also perused the original record and proceedings. 4. Dr. Mehta, learned advocate appearing for the appellant has contended that it is proved beyond doubt before the Tribunal that the driver of the offending vehicle, i.e., the rickshaw did not possess a valid license. Dr. Mehta further contended that there was no endorsement in the license to drive a transport vehicle and therefore, the appellant-insurance company should be exonerated completely and the owner be made liable. Dr. Mehta, learned advocate contended that the Tribunal also committed an error in directing the appellant to pay first and then recover from the owner. On the aforesaid sole ground, Dr. Mehta contended that the appeal be allowed. Dr. Mehta further candidly submitted that the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in later judgment in the case of Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in 2017(14) SCC 663 will cover the issue raised by the appellant in favour of the claimants. 5. Mr. Mehta contended that the appeal be allowed. Dr. Mehta further candidly submitted that the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in later judgment in the case of Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in 2017(14) SCC 663 will cover the issue raised by the appellant in favour of the claimants. 5. Mr. Tushar Sheth, learned counsel appearing for the claimants has submitted that the issue about endorsement of transport vehicle is no more res integra as the said issue is already covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra) and submitted that the appeal be dismissed and even the order of pay and recover would not be necessary as the insurance company would now be liable to satisfy the award. 6. No other or further submissions have been made by the learned counsel for the parties. 7. The only question which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether in absence of any endorsement of driving transport vehicle in the license of the driver of the offending vehicle would absolve the insurance company and whether the insurance company deserves to be exonerated. The learned counsel appearing for the parties have rightly relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra). In identical fact situation, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed thus- "58. "Transport vehicle" has been defined in section 2(47) of the Act, to mean a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle. Public service vehicle has been defined in section 2(35) to mean any motor vehicle used or adapted to be used for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward and includes a maxicab, a motor cab, contract carriage, and stage carriage. Goods carriage which is also a transport vehicle is defined in section 2(14) to mean a motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use solely for the carriage of goods, or any motor vehicle not so constructed or adapted when used for the carriage of goods. Goods carriage which is also a transport vehicle is defined in section 2(14) to mean a motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use solely for the carriage of goods, or any motor vehicle not so constructed or adapted when used for the carriage of goods. It was rightly submitted that a person holding licence to drive light motor vehicle registered for private use, who is driving a similar vehicle which is registered or insured, for the purpose of carrying passengers for hire or reward, would not require an endorsement as to drive a transport vehicle, as the same is not contemplated by the provisions of the Act. It was also rightly contended that there are several vehicles which can be used for private use as well as for carrying passengers for hire or reward. When a driver is authorised to drive a vehicle, he can drive it irrespective of the fact whether it is used for a private purpose or for purpose of hire or reward or for carrying the goods in the said vehicle. It is what is intended by the provision of the Act, and the Amendment Act 54/1994. 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. 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: 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. 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(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(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(f), heavy goods vehicle in section 10(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." In the case of hand, the driver of the rickshaw involved in the accident had a valid and subsisting license. However, there was no endorsement to drive transport vehicle. The contention raised by Dr. Mehta for the appellant insurance company is squarely covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra) and hence, the said contention deserves to be negatived. 8. The appeal therefore fails and is hereby dismissed. Even the direction to the appellant-insurance company to pay and recover is quashed and set aside. The appellant-insurance company shall deposit the amount as awarded by the Tribunal within a period of eight weeks from today if not deposited. Rest of the impugned judgment and award remains unaltered. However, there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. The record and proceedings be transmitted back to the Tribunal forthwith.