JUDGMENT : V. R K KRUPA SAGAR, J. Questioning the inadequacy of compensation and absolving the insurance company from liability, the injured claimant preferred this Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 impugning the award dated 22.09.2012 of the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court), Madanapalle (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in O.P.No.58 of 2009. 2. Heard arguments of Sri M.D.Saleem, the learned counsel for appellant and Sri N.Ramakrishna, the learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company. 3. The following facts are required to be noticed: Sri Babu @ S.Venkataramana Reddy and Sri Srinivasulu were walking on CTM road, Madanapalle on 02.01.2008. At about 9:45 P.M. an auto rickshaw bearing registration No.AP-03- X-2231 came rashly or negligently and dashed them causing serious injuries on head and other parts of the body of Sri Babu @ S.Venkataramana Reddy. The victim was treated at Government Hospital, Madanapalle and thereafter at SVRRGG Hospital, Tirupati and thereafter at SVIMS Hospital, Tirupati and CMC Hospital, Vellore. Relating to this accident, Crime No.3 of 2008 was registered and was investigated into and a charge sheet was laid against the driver of the offending auto rickshaw. The owner of the auto rickshaw is Sri S.Lokesh. At the material point of time it was validly insured by M/s. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited. The victim moved a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act praying for Rs.7,00,000/- as compensation and filed O.P.No.58 of 2009 before the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court), Madanapalle. Respondent No.1/owner of the offending auto rickshaw did not choose to appear and contest. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company filed a counter and denied the facts alleged and sought dismissal of the claim. 4. Basing on the rival pleadings, the learned Claims Tribunal settled the following issues: 1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the Auto bearings its registration No.AP-03-X-2231 involved resulting the injuries to the petitioner by name Babu @ Venkataramana Reddy? 2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, by whom and to what amount? 3) To what relief? 5. During enquiry, for claimant, PWs.1 to 3 and Exs.A.1 to A.9 were produced. A Senior Assistant of RTA Office, Madanapalle testified on behalf of the insurance company as RW.1 and produced Exs.X.1 and X.2. 2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, by whom and to what amount? 3) To what relief? 5. During enquiry, for claimant, PWs.1 to 3 and Exs.A.1 to A.9 were produced. A Senior Assistant of RTA Office, Madanapalle testified on behalf of the insurance company as RW.1 and produced Exs.X.1 and X.2. A copy of the insurance policy was filed as Ex.B.1. 6. Considering the investigative outcome of the State Police and the oral evidence of the eyewitness to this incident/PW.2, who was walking along with the victim, the learned Claims Tribunal concluded that the accident was a clear result of rash or negligent driving of driver of auto rickshaw bearing registration No.AP-03-X-2231. Respondent No.1 being the owner of it was held vicariously liable. The learned Claims Tribunal considering Exs.A.6 and A.8-medical bills and Ex.A.9-X-ray report and Ex.A.5-permanent disability certificate and considering the evidence of the doctor who administered treatment to the victim and testified as PW.3 granted Rs.25,000/- towards pain and sufferings, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of amenities of life, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of expectation of life, Rs.5,000/- towards discomfort and inconvenience, Rs.3,02,936/- towards medical expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards special diet and feedings expenses, Rs.4,200/- towards attendant charges and Rs.5,000 towards transport expenses. It considered the age of the claimant as 45 years and applied multiplier ‘14’ and considered his annual income at Rs.36,000/- and after deducting 1/3 rd of it arrived at Rs.3,36,000/-. It found Rs.2,68,000/- towards loss of earning capacity and thus, granted Rs.2,68,000/- in that regard. Finally, it granted total compensation of Rs.6,50,000/- as against the claim of Rs.7,00,000/-. 7. From the evidence of RW.1 and Ex.X.2, the learned Claims Tribunal found that the driver of the offending auto rickshaw was holding a driving licence to drive light motor vehicle auto rickshaw non-transport. However, since the offending auto rickshaw was a transport vehicle, it stated that the driver of the offending auto did not have valid and effective driving licence. Considering the same as violation of insurance policy terms and conditions, it exonerated the insurance company. Eventually, it allowed the claim in the following terms: “In the result, the petition is allowed with interest and proportionate costs only against the first respondent. Considering the same as violation of insurance policy terms and conditions, it exonerated the insurance company. Eventually, it allowed the claim in the following terms: “In the result, the petition is allowed with interest and proportionate costs only against the first respondent. The first respondent is directed to pay an amount of Rs.6,50,000/- towards the total compensation payable to the petitioner with interest at 7.5% pa., thereon from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The first respondent is also directed to deposit the amount of compensation within one month from the date of this award. After the deposit, the petitioner is at liberty to withdraw Rs.1,00,000/- out of the compensation amount with interest and costs and the balance amount shall be kept in fixed deposit in any Nationalized Bank for a period of three years. The rest of the petitioner's claim against the respondents is dismissed without costs. The petition against the second respondent is dismissed without costs. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,500/-.” 8. Aggrieved by that, the claimant has come up with this appeal questioning the legality of award of the Claims Tribunal in not fastening liability on the insurance company. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant made valiant submissions and argued that there is on record the evidence of RW.1 itself which the learned Claims Tribunal recorded at paragraph No.6 to the effect that an auto rickshaw comes under the category of LMV and its mechanism is similar for transport as well as non-transport vehicles. Yet, it did not give due consideration to it and acted against law contained in the precedent of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. 10. Learned counsel for insurance company argued that at paragraph No.7 copious precedent was cited by the learned Claims Tribunal and based on those ratios it finally absolved the insurance company from its liability and therefore, no warrant is required in this appeal. 11. The point that falls for consideration in this appeal is: “Whether light motor vehicle/auto rickshaw used as a transport vehicle can be driven by a licence holder holding driving licence to drive non-transport LMV?” POINT : 12. 11. The point that falls for consideration in this appeal is: “Whether light motor vehicle/auto rickshaw used as a transport vehicle can be driven by a licence holder holding driving licence to drive non-transport LMV?” POINT : 12. The following provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act are required to be noticed: Section 2(21): “light motor vehicle” means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road-roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed 1 [7500] kilograms. Section 2(47): “transport vehicle” means a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle. Section 4: Age limit in connection with driving of motor vehicles :— (1) …………… (2) Subject to the provisions of section 18, no person under the age of twenty years shall drive a transport vehicle in any public place. Section 3: Necessity for driving licence :—(1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorising him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle other than a motor cab or motor cycle hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under sub-section (2) of section 75 unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do. Section 7 : Restrictions on the granting of learner’s licences for certain vehicles :— (1) No person shall be granted a learner's licence to drive a transport vehicle unless he has held a driving licence to drive a light motor vehicle for at least one year: [Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply to an e-cart or e-rickshaw.] 13. Learned Claims Tribunal considered New India Assurance Company Limited v. Prabhu Lal , 2008 ACJ 627 and stated that a person holding driving licence to ply light motor vehicle cannot ply transport vehicle unless there is a specific endorsement to that effect as required by Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act read with Rule 16 of the Rules and Form No.6. When the claimant cited Premsingh v. Baldasi , [2010 ACJ 725] and National Insurance Co. When the claimant cited Premsingh v. Baldasi , [2010 ACJ 725] and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Yalgurdappa , [ 2012 ACJ 229 ] for the proposition that a person holding licence to drive LMV is entitled to drive both non-transport and transport vehicle, the learned Claims Tribunal without making any endeavour simply brushed aside those rulings stating that they were not applicable to the case at hand. 14. The controversy has now been resolved since a 5-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in M/s. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi , [ 2024 INSC 840 ] held that if the transport vehicle falls under the definition of ‘Light Motor Vehicle’ in Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the additional requirements as outlined in Section 3(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act and elsewhere need not be satisfied by a person holding a driving licence for a light motor vehicle class. A separate endorsement of a transport vehicle is not necessary as the light motor vehicle licence would be sufficient for vehicles below 7500 kgs. weight. Their Lordships harmoniously constructed Section 2(21) and Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act and held that additional licence requirements have no application for the light motor vehicle class of vehicles and such additional requirements will be needed only for such transport vehicles which by virtue of their gross weight fall in the Medium and Heavy category. The age restrictions outlined in Section 4 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the other criteria mentioned in Section 7 of the Motor Vehicles Act would also apply for the Medium and Heavy transport vehicles whose gross weight will be above 7500 kgs. and not for light motor vehicles. Their Lordships were pleased to consider the entire precedent and the conflicting rulings and overruled the contrary observations contained in National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2008) 3 SCC 464 v. Annappa Irappa Nesaria. 15. The above ruling of their Lordships would put the controversy to rest. 16. By applying the above ruling to the case at hand, it emerges at once, the insurance company whose Ex.B.1-policy was effective by the time of subject matter accident has also to shoulder the liability along with the owner of the vehicle. To that extent the impugned award requires modification. 17. 16. By applying the above ruling to the case at hand, it emerges at once, the insurance company whose Ex.B.1-policy was effective by the time of subject matter accident has also to shoulder the liability along with the owner of the vehicle. To that extent the impugned award requires modification. 17. With reference to various amounts of money granted as compensation under different heads, this Court after considering the submissions on both sides and the observations of the learned Claims Tribunal and the evidence on record finds no need to make any comments. The compensation awarded is found to be just. Hence, the point is answered accordingly. 18. In the result, this Appeal is allowed. Consequently, the award dated 22.09.2012 of the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court), Madanapalle in O.P.No.58 of 2009 fixing liability on the first respondent is modified. The liability to pay compensation amount of Rs.6,50,000/- with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization shall be shouldered by respondent Nos.1 and 2. Before the Claims Tribunal the second respondent-Insurance Company shall deposit the compensation amount within one month from the date of this judgment along with proportionate costs with 7.5% interest per annum as ordered in the award by the Claims Tribunal, after giving due credit to amount paid if any. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the same along with accrued interest thereon. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.