JUDGMENT : DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA, J. 1. This appeal is preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”) by the appellant-M/s.National Insurance Company against the Award and Decree dated 29.09.2005 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), East Godavari, Rajahmundry, (for short “the Tribunal”), in M.V.O.P.No. 659 of 2001 granting compensation of Rs.50,000/- with proportionate costs and with interest @ 9% per annum thereon from the date of filing of the petition till realization, against the respondents. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal in the claim petition. 3. The factual context of the case, is as under: (a) On 30.04.2001, while the petitioner/injured being the driver of the Van bearing No. AP 37 T 3033 along with cleaner and additional driver were proceeding to Chelluru from Ramachandrapuram, and when they reached Pasalapudi centre, and in the process of overtaking another vehicle, the petitioner/injured lost his control over the Van and turned towards the road side canal, as a result, the Van turned turtle into the road side canal due to which, the petitioner received grievous injuries and lost his teeth. (b) The matter was reported to the Police alleging that the accident took place as a result of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Van and based on the report given by his colleague namely K.Ganapathirao, a case in Crime No. 22 of 2001 was registered by Rayavaram Police for the offence under Sections 337 and 338 IPC. After investigation of the case, a charge sheet was submitted showing the petitioner/injured/driver of the Van as an accused for having committed an offence punishable under Sections 337 & 338 IPC and Sections 181 & 206 of M.V.Act. (c) The petitioner/injured filed an application claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- before the Tribunal on account of the injuries sustained by him in the said accident. (d) The 1st respondent/owner of the offending vehicle filed a counter denying all the allegations made by the petitioner in the claim petition with respect to the income of the petitioner, nature of injuries, mode of treatment and the alleged disability sustained by him and further averred that the petition is not maintainable and even otherwise, the claim is excessive and prayed to dismiss the petition. (e) The 2nd respondent-National Insurance company filed a counter denying the allegations made in the claim petition specifically with respect to the income, age, avocation of the petitioner/injured, mode of treatment and the alleged disability sustained by him. It is further denied that the petitioner was having valid driving licence at the time of the accident, the 1st respondent is the owner and possessed valid documents and this respondent is the insurer of the vehicle in question. It is averred that this petition is liable to be dismissed as the alleged accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner himself. It is further averred that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition. At the most, the petitioner can claim compensation under Workmen’s Compensation Act and prayed to dismiss the petition. (f) In view of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues: (1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner himself and, if so, whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation and, if so, to what extent and against whom? (2) To what relief? (g) In order to establish his claim, the petitioner/claimant adduced oral evidence of two witnesses (P.Ws.1 and 2) and produced as many as six documents (Exs.A.1 to A.6) on his behalf. One K.V.V. Satya Prasad, who was working as Junior Assistant in R.T.O Office, Kakinada was examined as R.W.1 and Exs.B.1 and B.2 were marked on behalf of the 2nd respondent, at the Tribunal. (h) On appreciation of the evidence, the following compensation was awarded by the Tribunal: S. No. Head of Compensation Amount of compensation awarded 1. Loss of three front teeth Rs. 38,000/- 2. Cost of artificial teeth Rs. 12,000/- (4,000/- per each tooth) Total Rs. 50,000/- (i) Aggrieved by, and dissatisfied with the said award, M/s. National Insurance Company Limited, being the appellant, has challenged the award by preferring the appeal on the following grounds: (i) The learned Tribunal has given a finding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle in question by the petitioner/claimant and erred in allowing the petition. (ii) The learned Tribunal failed to see that since the accident did not take place due to rash and negligent driving of a third party, the claimant is not entitled to claim compensation under M.V. Act. (ii) The learned Tribunal failed to see that since the accident did not take place due to rash and negligent driving of a third party, the claimant is not entitled to claim compensation under M.V. Act. (iii) The learned Tribunal committed an error in awarding compensation under the Act, which has no jurisdiction to decide the claim and the claimant is entitled to claim compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company would submit that, in Ex.A.6/Wound Certificate it is mentioned that the said vehicle turned turtle. Therefore, the accident occurred due to self-negligence of the injured. Hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation and prayed to exonerate the Insurance Company from its liability. 5. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent/injured would submit that while overtaking another vehicle, the offending vehicle turned turtle and the petitioner sustained injuries, which does not mean that the injured is not entitled to claim compensation. Therefore, there are no merits in the contentions urged by the Insurance Company and sought for dismissal of the appeal. 6. Now the points for consideration are: (i) Whether the Insurance Company has made out a case to entertain its appeal and absolve it from liability? (ii) Whether the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or needs interference of this Court? POINT Nos.1 & 2: 7. A perusal of the impugned award would show that the Tribunal has framed Issue No. 1 as to whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by its driver (petitioner/claimant), to which the Tribunal, after considering the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with the documentary evidence, has categorically observed that the petitioner received injuries in a road accident occurred on 30.04.2001 due to his own rash and negligent driving of the vehicle in question i.e., Van bearing No. AP 37 T 3033. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Van bearing No. AP 37 T 3033 by its driver himself (petitioner/claimant). 8. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Van bearing No. AP 37 T 3033 by its driver himself (petitioner/claimant). 8. Insofar as the of compensation is concerned, a perusal of the material on record would show that, as per Ex.A.6/Wound Certificate, the petitioner had sustained injuries and to prove the contents of Ex.A.6/Wound Certificate, the Doctor (P.W.2), who treated the injured deposed that he worked as a Dental Assistant Surgeon in G.G.H, Kakinada and he examined the patient by name R.Sudhakar, who came to the casualty with injuries. He further stated that on 01.05.2001, the injured came to the Dental O.P for treatment and the injured sustained loosening of teeth and fracture of right upper, central, lateral and canine teeth i.e., three fractures. He further deposed that on 01.05.2001 he extracted 1, 2 and 3 fractured teeth under local anesthesia. He further stated that, every fracture of tooth is a grievous one and because of the said fractures, the patient suffers while eating and it is a permanent disability. 9. In the present case, the injured was a driver of the Van bearing No. AP 37 T 3033. While driving the vehicle, due to overtake, the said Van turned turtle towards canal and he sustained injuries. Therefore, a petition under Sections 166 & 167 of M.V.Act has been filed. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, more particularly with regard to the Wound Certificate and Charge Sheet, it is only mentioned that the injured sustained injuries due to his own negligence in driving the Van bearing No. AP 37 T 3033 and as such, charge sheet was filed against the petitioner/claimant. But, there is no evidence contrary by the Insurance Company to prove that the injured, who was the driver of the Van, on his own negligence sustained injuries. Further, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company argued that, at the time of the accident, the driver of the vehicle was not having driving licence to drive the transport vehicles. Therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. 10. In the instant case, the 1st respondent/owner had not chosen to appear before this Court and the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company appeared through its counsel. Therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. 10. In the instant case, the 1st respondent/owner had not chosen to appear before this Court and the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company appeared through its counsel. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted their arguments as mentioned supra and this Court perused the impugned judgment and the reasoning given by the Tribunal and also gone through the record and proceedings of the Tribunal. It is clearly found from the record that the issue involved in the present appeal is with regard to the driver of the offending vehicle not having valid driving licence to drive the transport vehicle and possessed licence for non-transport vehicle as per Ex.B.1. But, at the relevant point of time, the position of law was different. Now the position of law is well settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, 2017 ACJ 2011 (SC) more particularly in Paragraphs 43, 45 and 46 as follows: 43. 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. 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. 44.................... 45. 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. 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. 46. 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. 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. 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. (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. (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. 11. In view of the above decision, now, the position of law is well settled. It is to be noted that merely in absence of endorsement to drive the transport vehicle on the licence, does not amount to lead to the interpretation that the driver was not holding a valid and effective driving licence. 11. In view of the above decision, now, the position of law is well settled. It is to be noted that merely in absence of endorsement to drive the transport vehicle on the licence, does not amount to lead to the interpretation that the driver was not holding a valid and effective driving licence. Therefore, in view of the settled legal position as noted above, if the driver holds licence to drive light motor vehicle, he can drive transport vehicle of such class without any endorsement to that effect. Hence, there is no substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the driver was not holding valid driving licence. In the facts of the case and looking into the beneficial purpose of the enactment of the Motor Vehicles Act, Insurance Company cannot avoid its liability. 12. Even assuming that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid licence to drive the transport vehicle, in spite of possessing a valid driving licence to drive motor car with gear, light motor vehicle and auto rickshaw, in the recent decision in Kurvan Ansari @ Kurvan Ali and Another vs. Shyam Kishore Murmu and Another, (2022) 1 SCC 317 Hon’ble Apex Court at Para No. 17 held as follows: “........The entire compensation shall be paid to the appellants by Respondent 2 insurance company, and we keep it open to the insurance company to recover the same from Respondent 1 owner of the motorcycle by initiating appropriate proceedings as the motorcycle was driven by the driver who was not possessing valid driving licence on the date of the accident. 18. Accordingly, this civil appeal is allowed partly with directions as indicated above. No order as to costs.” 13. In view of the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgments, the Insurance Company cannot escape from its liability. The learned Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation against the respondents, which is proper and justified. Therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation, which would serve the ends of justice. 14. Now, another question that arises for consideration, on the contention of the Insurance Company, is that when it is the case of the claimant that he suffered grievous injuries due to self-negligence, the Tribunal could not have fastened liability on the Insurance Company. 15. 14. Now, another question that arises for consideration, on the contention of the Insurance Company, is that when it is the case of the claimant that he suffered grievous injuries due to self-negligence, the Tribunal could not have fastened liability on the Insurance Company. 15. The accident had taken place on 30.04.2001 when the injured was the driver of the Van bearing No. AP 37 T 3033 while proceeding towards Chelluru from Ramachandrapuram. It is the specific case of the petitioner/claimant that he was the driver of the Van referred to above, and while overtaking the vehicle, which was proceeding in the same direction, he lost his control, due to which, the Van turned turtle and he lost three teeth and sustained injuries. The Insurance Company had taken a contention that due to the self-negligence of the petitioner, he sustained injuries. But, they failed to prove the same. 16. Therefore, under these circumstances, even though the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lesser side, since the accident occurred due to the self-negligence of the petitioner/injured, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper. 17. Further, the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.50,000/- i.e., Rs.38,000/- towards loss of three front teeth, which is a permanent disability and Rs.12,000/- (Rs.4,000 x 3) towards cost of artificial teeth, is found to be correct and does not call for any interference of this Court. 18. As discussed above, this Court finds that the compensation determined by the Tribunal is just and proper. I do not see any grounds to interfere with the quantum of compensation including rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal. Hence, this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 19. Resultantly, the appeal preferred by the National Insurance Company is dismissed: (i) The judgment and award dated 29.09.2005 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 659 of 2001 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), East Godavari, Rajahmundry, is hereby confirmed. (ii) No order as to costs. (iii) Registry is directed to send the record to the learned Tribunal forthwith. (iv) As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending for consideration, if any, shall stand closed.