JUDGMENT : Aggrieved by the order dated 27.10.2010 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Parvathipuram, in M.O.P.No.40 of 2009, whereby the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition against respondent Nos.3 to 5, this instant appeal has been preferred by the appellants/respondent Nos.1 & 2. 2. For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim petition. 3. The claim petitioners filed the petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of G. Srinivasa Rao, who is husband of 1st petitioner, father of petitioner Nos.2 & 3, and son of 4th petitioner, in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 22.03.2008. 4. Facts germane to dispose of the present appeal may briefly be stated as follows: On 22.03.2008 the deceased and another were proceeding from Visakhapatnam on a motor cycle bearing registration No.YBX AP 03F 3793 and when they reached near Suresh Residential School, Parvathipuram, at about 18.30 hours, a tractor-trailer bearing registration Nos.AP 35T 7577/4324 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn, was coming in opposite direction, and in the process of overtaking another tractor, the driver of the tractor-trailer came to extreme right side of the road margin and dashed against the motor cycle of the deceased, as a result, the deceased and another fell down, sustained severe injuries and died on the spot. A case in crime No.19 of 2008 was registered by the S.H.O., Parvathipuram P.S., against the driver of the offending tractortrailer for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC. Evidently, after completion of investigation, the police found that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending tractor-trailer. So, the police filed a charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC. The 1st respondent is driver, the 2nd respondent is owner and the 4th respondent is insurer of the tractor. The 3rd respondent is owner of the trailer and the 5th respondent is insurer of the trailer. Hence, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. 5. The 1st respondent is driver, the 2nd respondent is owner and the 4th respondent is insurer of the tractor. The 3rd respondent is owner of the trailer and the 5th respondent is insurer of the trailer. Hence, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. 5. Respondent Nos.2, 4 & 5 filed counters separately by denying the manner of accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. The counter filed by the 2nd respondent was adopted by respondent Nos.1 & 3. i) It is pleaded by the 2nd respondent that there was no rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending tractor-trailer, therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. ii) Respondent Nos.4 & 5 pleaded that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending tractor-trailer and the accident took place due to own negligence of the deceased in driving the motor cycle, the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, as such, they are not liable to pay any compensation. 6. Based on the above pleadings of both the parties, the following issues were settled for trial by the Tribunal: 1) Whether the accident was occurred resulting the death caused to the deceased Gorji Srinivasa Rao due to involvement of the vehicle Tractor and Trailer bearing No.AP 35T 7577 and AP 35T 4324 by its driver R-1? 2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation? If so, what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents? 3) To what relief? 7. During the course of enquiry in the petition, on behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.4 and Ex.X.1 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.4 were marked. 8. At the culmination of the enquiry, after considering the evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending tractor-trailer and accordingly, recorded a finding to that effect in the impugned order. 8. At the culmination of the enquiry, after considering the evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending tractor-trailer and accordingly, recorded a finding to that effect in the impugned order. As the 1st respondent is the driver and the 2nd respondent is the owner of the tractor which involved in the accident, the Tribunal held that both of them are liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, awarded an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation to the petitioners. However, the liability to pay the compensation is fixed only against respondent Nos.1 & 2. Even though the tractor was insured with the 4th respondent and the trailer was insured with the 5th respondent, the Tribunal exonerated the Insurance companies from their liability to indemnify the 2nd respondent/owner of tractor and the 3rd respondent/owner of trailer, on the ground that the driver of the offending tractor was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and he possessed driving licence to drive L.M.V. non-transport only and it does not contain the endorsement ‘transport’. Assailing the legal validity of the order of the Tribunal in exonerating respondent Nos.4 & 5 from their liability to indemnify the owners of the offending tractor-trailer, this appeal is preferred by respondent Nos.1 & 2. 9. Heard learned counsels for both the parties and perused the record. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants/respondent Nos.1 & 2 would vehemently contend that the driver of the tractor was having valid driving licence and the tractor was insured with the 4th respondent under a valid policy and the offending trailer was insured with the 5th respondent under a valid policy, therefore, respondent Nos.4 & 5 are liable to pay the compensation, but, the Tribunal grossly erred in absolving respondent Nos. 4 & 5 from their liability to indemnify the owners of the tractor-trailer. The learned counsel, therefore, prays to allow the appeal and to make respondent Nos.4 & 5 liable to indemnify the owners of the tractor-trailer and pay the compensation to the petitioners. 11. 4 & 5 from their liability to indemnify the owners of the tractor-trailer. The learned counsel, therefore, prays to allow the appeal and to make respondent Nos.4 & 5 liable to indemnify the owners of the tractor-trailer and pay the compensation to the petitioners. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 & 5/Insurance companies would submit that the driver of the offending tractor was not having valid and effective driving licence, the offending tractor is a transport vehicle, the driver of the tractor possessed driving licence to drive L.M.V. non-transport only and it does not contain the endorsement ‘transport’, therefore, the Insurance companies are not liable to pay any compensation. 12. It is not disputed by respondent Nos.4 & 5 that the offending tractor was insured with the 4th respondent and the trailer was insured with the 5th respondent under Exs.B.1 and B.3-policies respectively and the policies were also in force as on the date of accident. It is not in dispute by both sides with regard to the factum of accident and death of the deceased in the accident, but the dispute is with regard to the manner of accident. 13. Evidently, the claim petition is filed under Section 163-A of the Act. As per Section 163-A of the Act, involvement of vehicle in the accident is sufficient for granting compensation and there is no need to prove rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. In fact, no evidence was produced by the respondents to prove that the offending tractor-trailer was not involved in the accident in question. The petitioners, in order to prove their case, got examined the eye witness to the accident as P.W.2. P.W.2 supported the case of the petitioners with regard to the manner of accident. The evidence of P.W.2 and Ex.A.1-F.I.R., Ex.A.2-post mortem certificate, Ex.A.3- M.V.I. report and Ex.A.4-charge sheet clearly prove that the accident in question took place due to involvement of the offending tractor-trailer. 14. Coming to the compensation, according to the petitioners, the deceased was aged 27 years at the relevant time of accident which is supported by Ex.A.3-post mortem certificate. The evidence of P.W.2 and Ex.A.1-F.I.R., Ex.A.2-post mortem certificate, Ex.A.3- M.V.I. report and Ex.A.4-charge sheet clearly prove that the accident in question took place due to involvement of the offending tractor-trailer. 14. Coming to the compensation, according to the petitioners, the deceased was aged 27 years at the relevant time of accident which is supported by Ex.A.3-post mortem certificate. Coming to the avocation and income of the deceased, the evidence of P.W.1 shows that by the date of accident, the deceased was earning Rs.4,500/- p.m. by doing cooli work, but no evidence was adduced by the petitioners to show that the deceased used to earn Rs.4,500/- p.m. as a coolie by the date of accident. The accident occurred in the year 2007. By taking into consideration of the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, the Tribunal taken the notional income of the deceased as Rs.36,000/- per annum and by adhering to the guidelines issued under Schedule- II of Section 163-A of the Act, after deducting 1/3rd from out of annual income towards personal expenses of the deceased and after adopting the multiplier ‘18’ to the age group of the deceased for computation of loss of dependency, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the petitioners are entitled to Rs.4,32,000/- (Rs.24,000/- (Rs.36,000/- - Rs.12,000/-) x multiplier ‘18’) towards loss of dependency. In addition to the said amount, the Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium to the 1st petitioner, Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses of the deceased. By giving cogent reasons, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the petitioners are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.4,41,500/-. Since the petitioners sought for compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-, the Tribunal awarded the said amount of Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation for the death of the deceased in the accident. This Court feels that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper, therefore, there is no need to interfere with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 15. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 & 5 would submit that by the date of accident, the driver of the offending tractor-trailer was not having valid driving licence, as such, both the Insurance companies are not liable to pay the compensation. 16. The 5th respondent/Insurance company, in order to prove their case, got examined one witness as R.W.3 and relied on Ex.B.4-driving licence of the 1st respondent/driver. 16. The 5th respondent/Insurance company, in order to prove their case, got examined one witness as R.W.3 and relied on Ex.B.4-driving licence of the 1st respondent/driver. Ex.B.4 shows that the 1st respondent possessed driving licence to drive L.M.V. non-transport only. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that since the offending tractor is a transport vehicle and there is violation of conditions in Exs.B.1 and B.3 policies, both the Insurance companies are not liable to pay the compensation. 17. The law is well settled that a person, who is holding driving licence of light motor vehicle, can drive light motor vehicle-transport. The legal position in this regard is not res nova and the same has been well settled. The Apex Court in the case of Nagashetty Vs. United India Insurance Co.Ltd., (2001) 8 SCC 56 had an occasion to deal with the similar issue. The question that fell for consideration before the Apex Court in the said case is whether the Insurance company (the insurer) is absolved of its obligation to the third party under the policy of insurance because of lack of ‘transport’ endorsement on the driving licence of driver of offending tractor-cum-trailer. In that decision, the Apex Court held as under: “12. The policy is for a tractor. The ‘effective driving licence’ is thus for a tractor. The restriction on a learner driving the tractor when used for transporting goods shows that the policy itself contemplates that the tractor could be used for carriage of goods. The tractor by itself could not carry goods. The goods would be carried in a trailer attached to it. That is why the extra premium for a trailer. The restriction placed on a person holding a learner's licence i.e. not to drive when goods are being carried is not there for a permanent licence-holder. Thus a permanent licence-holder having an effective/valid licence to drive a tractor can drive even when the tractor is used for carrying goods. That is why the extra premium for a trailer. The restriction placed on a person holding a learner's licence i.e. not to drive when goods are being carried is not there for a permanent licence-holder. Thus a permanent licence-holder having an effective/valid licence to drive a tractor can drive even when the tractor is used for carrying goods. When the policy itself so permits, the High Court was wrong in coming to the conclusion that a person having a valid driving licence to drive a tractor would become disqualified to drive the tractor if a trailer was attached to it.” In the instant case also, the offending vehicle is a tractor-trailer, the tractor is insured with the Oriental insurance Company Ltd. and the trailer is insured with the United India Insurance Company Ltd. and both the policies are in force by the date of accident. Learned standing counsels for both the Insurance companies fairly admitted that the tractor also comes under the purview of light motor vehicle, and the only violation is that the driving licence of the driver is not having the endorsement ‘transport’. The law is well settled that to drive a light motor vehicle – transport or non-transport, the skills of driving are one and same. The legal position in this regard has been well settled. Therefore, the ratio laid down in the above judgment is squarely applicable to the present case. 18. In Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2017) 14 SCC 663 , the three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court had an occasion to deal with the similar issue and held as follows: 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.” 19. The ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgment is also squarely applicable to the facts of the case on hand. Therefore, it can be held that the 1st respondent/driver is having valid driving licence to drive the offending tractor-trailer. 20. The ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgment is also squarely applicable to the facts of the case on hand. Therefore, it can be held that the 1st respondent/driver is having valid driving licence to drive the offending tractor-trailer. 20. As stated supra, the claim petition is filed under Section 163-A of the Act, the offending tractor-trailer was involved in the accident, the tractor of the 2nd respondent was insured with the 4th respondent under Ex.B.1-policy, the trailer of the 3rd respondent was insured with the 5th respondent under Ex.B.3-policy, and both the policies were in force by the date of accident. Therefore, the 4th respondent has to indemnify the 2nd respondent/owner of tractor and the 5th respondent has to indemnify the 3rd respondent/owner of trailer. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that it is just and proper to fix 75% liability of payment of compensation on the 2nd respondent and 25% liability on the 3rd respondent. Thus, out of total compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-, the 2nd respondent is liable to pay Rs.3,00,000/- and the same has to be indemnified by the 4th respondent being insurer of the tractor and the 3rd respondent is liable to pay Rs.1,00,000/- and the same has to be indemnified by the 5th respondent being insurer of the trailer. 21. In the result, the appeal is allowed by directing the 4th respondent/the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. to deposit Rs.3,00,000/- and the 5th respondent/the United India Insurance Company Ltd. to deposit Rs.1,00,000/-, out of total compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, with costs and interest as ordered by the Tribunal, before the Tribunal within two months from the date of this judgment. The order of the Tribunal with regard to the liability is modified to the extent indicated above. The order of the Tribunal in all other respects shall remain intact. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.