Order : 1. The present Civil Misc. Appeals have been filed by the owner of the vehicle-Pick-up bearing registration No.RJ-37-GA-0029 being aggrieved by the impugned award dated 15.10.2016 (Annexure-4) passed in Civil Misc. Claim Nos.113/2011 and 128/2011 by learned Judge, MACT, Parbatsar, District Nagaur whereby, the respondent- Shri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd. (Insurance Company of the Pick-Up) was exonerated from liability to pay the compensation with a direction to pay and recover from appellant-owner of the Pick-up. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant-owner submits that the learned Tribunal in the impugned award dated 15.10.2016 (Annexure-4) has held that the driver of the Pick-up was not having valid driving license to drive the Pick-up as the driver of the Pick-up was having the license to drive Light Motor Vehicles only. He further submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Rambha Devi & Ors.” Civil Appeal No.841 of 2018 decided on 06.11.2024 has upheld the decision in the case of “Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.” 2017 14 SCC 663 and thus, the driver of the Pick-up which is registered as Goods vehicle was not required to have transport vehicle license. Relevant part of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced hereunder:- “…. 131 . Our conclusions following the above discussion are as under:- (I) A driver holding a license for Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) class, under Section 10 (2)(d) for vehicles with a gross Page 125 of 126 vehicle weight under 7,500 kg is permitted to operate a ‘Transport Vehicle’ without needing additional authorization under Section 10 (2) (e) of the MV Act specifically for the ‘Transport Vehicle’ class. For licensing purposes, LMVs and Transport Vehicles are not entirely separate classes. An overlap exists between the two. The special eligibility requirements will however continue to apply for, inter alia, e-carts, e-rickshaws, and vehicles carrying hazardous goods. (II) The second part of Section 3 (1), which emphasizes the necessity of a specific requirement to drive a ‘Transport Vehicle,’ does not supersede the definition of LMV provided in Section 2(21) of the MV Act . The special eligibility requirements will however continue to apply for, inter alia, e-carts, e-rickshaws, and vehicles carrying hazardous goods. (II) The second part of Section 3 (1), which emphasizes the necessity of a specific requirement to drive a ‘Transport Vehicle,’ does not supersede the definition of LMV provided in Section 2(21) of the MV Act . (III) The additional eligibility criteria specified in the MV Act and MV Rules generally for driving ‘transport vehicles’ would apply only to those intending to operate vehicles with gross vehicle weight exceeding 7,500 kg i.e. ‘medium goods vehicle’, ‘medium passenger vehicle’, ‘heavy goods vehicle’ and ‘heavy passenger vehicle’. (IV) The decision in Mukund Dewangan (2017) is upheld but for reasons as explained by us in this judgment. In the absence of any obtrusive omission, the decision is not per incuriam, even if certain provisions of the MV Act and MV Rules were not considered in the said judgment. …..” 3. Learned counsel for the respondent-Shri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd. is unable to refute the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant-owner of the bus. 4. In view of the submissions made and taking into consideration the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rambha Devi (supra) wherein the decision in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra) was upheld, the direction given to the respondent- Shri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd. in the impugned award dated 15.10.2016 (Annexure-4) to the extent of pay and recover is quashed and set aside. All the non-applicants are held jointly and severally liable to pay compensation as awarded by the learned Tribunal along with the interest (as awarded by the learned Tribunal), if not already paid/deposited. 5. Accordingly, the instant misc. appeals are partly allowed in the above terms.