JUDGMENT : SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO, J. 1. Heard learned counsel Sri M.Rama Krishna for the appellant- insurance company and the learned counsel Sri M.Yadaiah, for the respondent-claimant and none for the respondent No.2-owner of the crime vehicle. 2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-insurance company challenging the award passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Judge, Family Court) at Nalgonda (for short, ‘Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.573 of 2018, dated 09.05.2022, wherein the claim of the petitioners/respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein was allowed in part, awarding compensation of Rs.11,79,400/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till date of deposit with proportionate costs. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, on 24.08.2011, at about 10.45 a.m., one Dandu Kiran (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”) completed his work at Kompally and thereafter proceeded to his village on his motorcycle bearing registration No.AP-24-AM-4703, riding cautiously on the extreme left side of the road and when he reached Kammagudem of Chikatimamidi village at about 7.30 p.m., he dashed against a Road Roller bearing registration No.AP-29-BG- 7994 (hereinafter referred to as the “crime vehicle”), which had been stationed on the road by its driver without taking any precautionary measures. Owing to the darkness of the night and the glare of lights from oncoming vehicles, the deceased could not notice the parked road roller, resulting in the accident. As a result, he sustained multiple injuries and fractures. Immediately, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Nalgonda for treatment, and while undergoing treatment, he succumbed to the injuries. 4. The Police, Munugode P.S., registered a case in Crime No.21/2018 under Sections 304-A and 337 of IPC against the driver of the crime vehicle and laid charge sheet before the competent Court of law. 5. The claimants, who are the parents of the deceased, filed claim petition against the driver, owner and insurer of the crime vehicle under Section 166 read with Section 170 of the of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, before the Tribunal, claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- along with interest from the date of the petition till the date of realization. 6. 5. The claimants, who are the parents of the deceased, filed claim petition against the driver, owner and insurer of the crime vehicle under Section 166 read with Section 170 of the of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, before the Tribunal, claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- along with interest from the date of the petition till the date of realization. 6. The Tribunal, on due enquiry and on considering the oral and documentary evidence, has categorically held that the accident occurred due to negligent parking of the crime vehicle by its driver on the road and awarded an amount of Rs.11,79,400/- towards compensation to the claimants, payable by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 therein. Aggrieved by the award and decree dated 09.05.2022 in MVOP No.573 of 2018 passed by the Tribunal, the appellant- insurance company filed the present Appeal. 7. Learned counsel for appellant-insurance company has contended that the Tribunal erred in not taking the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, who was riding the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner without having valid driving license and dashed the stationed crime vehicle from behind, which was parked on the extreme outer margin of the road. It is contended that the driver of the crime vehicle has no licence to run the crime vehicle as on the date of the accident. It is further contended that the Tribunal to appreciate that the fact of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, who was riding the motorcycle without wearing Helmet and thus erred in not apportioning the liability equally i.e., 50-50 on the owner and insurer of both the vehicles and prayed to set aside the award passed by the Tribunal. 8. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for appellant placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mukund Dewangan v. Orieintal Insurance Company Limited (2017) 14 SCC 663 . 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2- claim petitioners submitted that on due consideration of the evidence and material placed on record, the Tribunal had rightly awarded the compensation and therefore, no grounds are made out to interfere with the well considered award passed by the Tribunal and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 10. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2- claim petitioners submitted that on due consideration of the evidence and material placed on record, the Tribunal had rightly awarded the compensation and therefore, no grounds are made out to interfere with the well considered award passed by the Tribunal and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 10. The principal contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company is with regard to non-fastening the liability of 50% towards contributory negligence since the accident occurred due to negligence of the drivers of the motorcycle and the crime vehicle and that the driver of the crime vehicle was not having valid driving licence to drive the said vehicle. 11. There is no dispute with regard to the accident that occurred on the fateful day of 09.02.2018, in which the deceased received multiple injuries and succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment in the hospital. 12. Insofar as the contributory negligence is concerned, a perusal of Ex.A1-C.C. of FIR and Ex.A2-C.C. of inquest report, it would clear that accident occurred due to negligent parking of the crime vehicle on the road without any precautions by its driver i.e., respondent No.3 herein. After investigation of the alleged crime by the Police, the Police laid charge sheet, which was marked as Ex.A5, wherein it was also established that the accident occurred on the fateful day of 09.02.2018, the deceased and one Varre Ashok, were returning on their respective motorcycles after completion of their work at the Gram Panchayat, Kompally Village. While proceeding on the way, upon reaching Kammagudem of Cheekatimamidi Village, the deceased dashed against a road roller which had been negligently parked on the road without any proper care or caution and further, Varre Ashok also dashed against the said road roller and sustained injuries. 13. P.W.2–V.Ashok, who is an eyewitness to the accident and also an injured witness, deposed that he and the deceased were returning from their work on their respective motorcycles, and the deceased riding ahead of him. 13. P.W.2–V.Ashok, who is an eyewitness to the accident and also an injured witness, deposed that he and the deceased were returning from their work on their respective motorcycles, and the deceased riding ahead of him. At about 7.30 p.m., when they reached the outskirts of Kammagudem village, the driver of the crime vehicle had parked the crime vehicle in the middle of the road without taking any precautionary measures and due to the glare of headlights from oncoming vehicles, the deceased could not notice the parked crime vehicle and dashed against it in the first instance, and thereafter P.W.2 also dashed against the said vehicle in the second instance. As a result, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and later succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment. Though P.W.2 was subjected to cross-examination, nothing material was elicited to discredit his testimony or to doubt the occurrence of the accident and further, P.W.2, who was also riding another motorcycle also dashed the crime vehicle which shows that said crime vehicle was parked without any precautions dangerously on the road. 14. From the above evidence, it is clear that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle in parking the same on the road without taking any precautions. Further, on behalf of the insurance company, R.W.1, who is the Senior Assistant in the Office of the Regional Transport Authority, was examined to ascertain whether the driver of the crime vehicle possessed a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. According to R.W.1, the driver of the crime vehicle was holding a driving licence to drive an Auto- Rickshaw (transport vehicle) as on the date of the accident, which is evident from Ex.B2-driving licence of the driver of crime vehicle and further deposed that as on the date of accident, the driver of the crime vehicle had no licence to run road roller. 15. In Mukund Dewangan (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court held 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 Sections 2(15) and 2(48). Such transport vehicles are not excluded from the definition of the light motor vehicle by virtue of Amendment Act 54 of 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 Sections 2(15) and 2(48). Such transport vehicles are not excluded from the definition of the light motor vehicle by virtue of Amendment Act 54 of 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 roadroller, “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 roadroller, 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 of 1994 and 28-3-2001 in the form. 60.3. The effect of the amendment made by virtue of Act 54 of 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.” 16. From the settled legal position, it is evident that a person holding an Auto-Rickshaw (Transport) driving licence is authorized to drive only Light Motor Vehicles (Transport) with a Gross Vehicle Weight not exceeding 7,500 kgs. In the present case, Ex.B2 clearly establishes that the driver of the crime vehicle possessed only an Auto-Rickshaw (Transport) driving licence. But, however, the owner of the crime vehicle permitted the driver to drive a road roller, which is a heavy motor vehicle having a GVW of 10,500 kgs, as borne out by Ex.B3—the certified copy of the insurance policy, thereby constituting a clear breach of policy conditions. Therefore, in light of the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the owner of the crime vehicle has also contributed to the accident in permitting his driver, who did not possess a valid licence to drive heavy vehicles, to drive the road roller, which has a gross vehicle weight exceeding 7,500 kgs. 17. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case and the settled legal position, the owner of the crime vehicle alone is liable to pay the compensation, as he permitted his driver, who did not possess a valid driving licence, to drive the crime vehicle, and consequently, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. 18. Insofar as exoneration of insurance company from its liability to pay the compensation amount, it is relevant to mention that the Motor Vehicles Act is beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims and their families. In National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Swaran Singh and others , (2004) 3 SCC 297 the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: “107. Insofar as exoneration of insurance company from its liability to pay the compensation amount, it is relevant to mention that the Motor Vehicles Act is beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims and their families. In National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Swaran Singh and others , (2004) 3 SCC 297 the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: “107. We may, however, hasten to add that the Tribunal and the court must, however, exercise their jurisdiction to issue such a direction upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of each case and in the event such a direction has been issued, despite arriving at a finding of fact to the effect that the insurer has been able to establish that the insured has committed a breach of contract of insurance as envisaged under sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the Act, the insurance company shall be entitled to realise the awarded amount from the owner or driver of the vehicle, as the case may be, in execution of the same award having regard to the provisions of Sections 165 and 168 of the Act. However, in the event, having regard to the limited scope of inquiry in the proceedings before the Tribunal it had not been able to do so, the insurance company may initiate a separate action therefor against the owner or the driver of the vehicle or both, as the case may be. Those exceptional cases may arise when the evidence becomes available to or comes to the notice of the insurer at a subsequent stage or for one reason or the other, the insurer was not given an opportunity to defend at all. Such a course of action may also be resorted to when a fraud or collusion between the victim and the owner of the vehicle is detected or comes to the knowledge of the insurer at a later stage. 108. Although, as noticed hereinbefore, there are certain special leave petitions wherein the persons having the vehicles at the time when the accidents took place did not hold any licence at all, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not intend to set aside the said awards. 108. Although, as noticed hereinbefore, there are certain special leave petitions wherein the persons having the vehicles at the time when the accidents took place did not hold any licence at all, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not intend to set aside the said awards. Such awards may also be satisfied by the petitioners herein subject to their right to recover the same from the owners of the vehicles in the manner laid down therein. But this order may not be considered as a precedent.” 19. Thus, as per the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Swaran Singh’s case, it is clear that mere absence of possession of valid driving license by the driver of the crime vehicle will not absolve the insurance company from its liability to pay compensation. 20. In Shamanna and another vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others , (2018) 9 SCC 650 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: “13. Since the reference to the larger Bench in Parvathneni case [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Parvathneni, (2009) 8 SCC 785 : (2009) 3 SCC (Civ) 568 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 943] has been disposed of by keeping the questions of law open to be decided in an appropriate case, presently the decision in Swaran Singh case [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 733] followed in Laxmi Narain Dhut [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Laxmi Narain Dhut, (2007) 3 SCC 700 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 142] and other cases hold the field. The award passed by the Tribunal directing the insurance company to pay the compensation amount awarded to the claimants and thereafter, recover the same from the owner of the vehicle in question, is in accordance with the judgment passed by this Court in Swaran Singh [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 733] and Laxmi Narain Dhut [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Laxmi Narain Dhut, (2007) 3 SCC 700 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 142] cases. While so, in our view, the High Court ought not to have interfered with the award passed by the Tribunal directing the first respondent to pay and recover from the owner of the vehicle. Ltd. v. Laxmi Narain Dhut, (2007) 3 SCC 700 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 142] cases. While so, in our view, the High Court ought not to have interfered with the award passed by the Tribunal directing the first respondent to pay and recover from the owner of the vehicle. The impugned judgment [Shamanna v. Laxman, 2016 SCC OnLine Kar 6928] of the High Court exonerating the insurance company from its liability and directing the claimants to recover the compensation from the owner of the vehicle is set aside and the award passed by the Tribunal is restored.” 21. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case and the legal position, this Court is of the considered opinion to direct the insurance company to first satisfy the Award in full and later to recover the same from the driver and owner of the crime vehicle i.e., respondents 3 and 4 herein. 22. In the result, the Appeal is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.