JUDGMENT : 1. The present batch of two miscellaneous appeals and one civil revision arise out of the same accident and stands decided in three different claim cases, i.e., Claim Case No.204/2014, Claim Case No.205/2014 and Claim Case No. 203/2014 respectively by the Third Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bastar at Jagdalpur vide Awards dated 9.3.2016. 2. Vide impugned Awards, learned Claims Tribunal, in a proceeding under Section 166(1) read with Section 140(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has awarded a compensation of Rs.5,19,600/- to the claimants in Claim Case No. 204/2014 (MAC No.720/2016) for death of deceased Neela Bai, Rs.9,200/- to the injured claimant Smt. Somari in Claim Case No.205/2014 (CR No.90/2016) and Rs.51,900/- to the injured claimant Smt. Devli in Claim Case No. 203/2014 (MAC No.721/2016) along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of their respective claim application, fastening the liability of payment of compensation jointly and severally upon the United India Insurance Company as well as on the driver Prashant Kumar Baghel and owner Smt. Laxmi Royali of the offending vehicle, i.e., Auto bearing Registration No. CG17-T/0563 which met with accident in question on 12.2.2014 resulting in death and injuries to the aforesaid persons. 3. The Insurance Company took a specific plea before the Claims Tribunal that the driver Prashant Kumar Baghel, who was driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident, was only having a driving licence to drive light motor vehicle which was valid up to 9.2.2033 and there was no endorsement therein to drive a transport vehicle. However, learned Claims Tribunal rejected the argument of the Insurance Company and fastened the liability of payment of compensation upon the Insurance Company in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Kulwant Singh and Others v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited., (2015) 2 SCC 186 , which has been called in question by filing the present appeals and revision by the Insurance Company. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits that the Claims Tribunal is absolutely unjustified in fastening the liability for payment of compensation upon the Insurance Company, as the offending vehicle was a transport vehicle and the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a licence at the time of accident to drive a transport vehicle. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits that the Claims Tribunal is absolutely unjustified in fastening the liability for payment of compensation upon the Insurance Company, as the offending vehicle was a transport vehicle and the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a licence at the time of accident to drive a transport vehicle. He thus prays for the two appeals and the revision to be allowed fastening the liability upon the driver and owner of the offending vehicle to pay compensation to the claimants. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the claimants as well as learned counsel appearing for the driver and owner submit that in light of the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the matter of Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited., (2017) 14 SCC 663 , the appeals as well as revision filed by the Insurance Company deserve to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also gone through the records with utmost circumspection. 7. The short question involved in this batch of miscellaneous appeals and civil revision is as under:- “Whether 'Light motor vehicle' as defined in Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 would include a transport vehicle as per the weight prescribed in Section 2(21) read with Section 2(15) and 2(48) of the said Act.” 8. In the matter of Mukund Dewangan (supra), a three- Judge bench decision, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have considered the question as to whether licence to drive light motor vehicle would include licence to drive a transport vehicle and held in paragraphs 60.1 & 20.2 as under:- “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. “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(2)(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54/1994 and 28.3.2001 in the form.” 9. The correctness of the aforesaid three-Judge decision rendered in the matter of Mukund Dewangan (supra) was doubted and the matter was referred before the Constitution Bench in the matter of Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi and Others, (2024) 1 SCC 818 in which the Constitution Bench in paragraphs 14, 15 & 16 has held as follows:- “14. Hence, in view of the consequences which may arise by the reversal of the judgment in Mukund Dewangan (supra), it would be appropriate if the entire matter is evaluated by the Government before this Court embarks upon the interpretative exercise. Once the Court is apprised of the considered view of the Union Government, the proceedings before the Constitution Bench can be taken up. 15. We request the Union Government to carry out this exercise within a period of two months. 16. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the referral order dated 8.3.2022 or on the correctness of the decision in Mukund Dewangan (supra) which would await further arguments once the considered view of the Union Government is placed before this Court.” 10. 16. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the referral order dated 8.3.2022 or on the correctness of the decision in Mukund Dewangan (supra) which would await further arguments once the considered view of the Union Government is placed before this Court.” 10. Since, in the aforesaid matter, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the referral order therein or on the correctness of the decision in Mukul Dewangan (supra), it holds the field and squarely applies to the facts of the present case. 11. In that view of the matter, the impugned Awards passed by learned Claims Tribunal fastening the liability for payment of compensation upon the Insurance Company holding that licence to drive light motor vehicle would also include licence to drive a transport vehicle, deserve to be and are hereby affirmed. 12. Accordingly, the two appeals and the revision filed by the Insurance Company are dismissed. 13. Parties to bear their own cost(s).