JUDGMENT : Sumathi Jagadam, J. This appeal is preferred by the New India Assurance Company Limited, the 2 nd respondent in the claim petition, challenging the order dated 16.02.2009 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Kadapa, in W.C.No.116 of 2007, which granted compensation of Rs.5,10,692/- to the applicant for the injuries sustained in a road accident. 2. For convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as they were arrayed in the claim petition. 3. The applicant is 25 years old and employed as a driver of a Tata Sumo, bearing registration number AP 04U 7351, owned by opposite party-III. On 13.07.2007, the applicant, along with Nadendla Subahan Basha and his family, was travelling in the Tata Sumo to Reddivaripalli village in Talupula Mandal, Anantapur District. When the vehicle reached the Muddanuru-Pulivendula road, the Sumo’s rear tyre was punctured due to loss of air. This caused the driver to lose control over the vehicle, resulting in the vehicle overturning and being dragged to some distance. Consequently, the applicant and other occupants sustained serious injuries. They were admitted to the Government General Hospital in Pulivendula, where the applicant was hospitalised for two months. As a result of the accident, the applicant’s right hand was permanently disabled, and he lost 50% of his vision and earning capacity. The Thondur Police registered Crime No. 33/2007 regarding the incident. Opposite party-III had purchased the vehicle from opposite party-I on February 13, 2007, but the vehicle's policy had not been transferred to opposite party-III. Therefore, opposite party-II is liable to pay compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/-, along with 12% interest. 4. Opposite Parties I and III were set ex parte. Opposite Party II- Insurance Company filed a counter stating that Opposite Party I is not the owner of the Tata Sumo, rendering the application non- maintainable. The applicant holds a non-transport LMV driving licence, and as the Tata Sumo is a transport vehicle, the Insurance Company is not liable for compensation. Additionally, the applicant must demonstrate that he is unfit to drive. Accordingly, the petition was sought to be dismissed. 5. During the course of the trial, on behalf of the applicant, A.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.7 were marked. On behalf of Opposite Party-II, R.W. 1 was examined and Exs.B.1 to B.3 were marked. 6. Additionally, the applicant must demonstrate that he is unfit to drive. Accordingly, the petition was sought to be dismissed. 5. During the course of the trial, on behalf of the applicant, A.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.7 were marked. On behalf of Opposite Party-II, R.W. 1 was examined and Exs.B.1 to B.3 were marked. 6. After considering the arguments advanced by both the counsel and examining the evidence on record, including oral and documentary evidence, the Deputy Commissioner allowed the petition and, by an order dated 16.02.2009, awarded compensation of Rs.5,10,692/-, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition until the date of deposit. The Insurance Company has filed the present appeal, challenging this order and raising the following substantive questions of law. 1) Whether the order of the Commissioner is correct in making the appellant liable to pay compensation, when the 1 st respondent was not possessing a valid and effective driving licence to drive the insured vehicle? 2) Whether the order of the Commissioner is correct in treating the 1 st respondent as a driver of the insured vehicle when he was not holding an effective driving licence? 3) Whether the order of the Commissioner is correct in treating the 1 st respondent as a driver of the insured vehicle when he was not holding an effective driving licence? 4) Whether the order of the Commissioner is correct in making the appellant liable to pay interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition? 5) Whether the order of the Commissioner is correct in assessing the loss of earning capacity as 100% when the evidence of the Doctor was that of 70%? 7. Before addressing the main issue, it is essential to recognize that the appeal is filed under Section 30 of the W.C. Act. Proceedings under this Section are initiated only when a substantial legal question is involved, rather than superficial factual or minor legal issues. However, in cases where there is a misapplication of the law or an incorrect assessment of evidence—especially documentary evidence—the CMA is required to examine these critical legal questions. Ignoring this obligation would be a significant error. 8. The appellant contends that without a valid and effective driving license, the applicant is not eligible for compensation. However, in cases where there is a misapplication of the law or an incorrect assessment of evidence—especially documentary evidence—the CMA is required to examine these critical legal questions. Ignoring this obligation would be a significant error. 8. The appellant contends that without a valid and effective driving license, the applicant is not eligible for compensation. The applicant testified as A.W.1 and Ex.A.6 is a photocopy of the driving license. During cross-examination, the applicant admitted that he did not submit the original licence. R.W.1, the Assistant Manager at the Divisional Office of the New India Assurance Company Limited in Kadapa, confirmed that Ex.B.3 is an extract of a valid LMV driving license. Furthermore, the skills required for LMV transport and non-transport categories are the same. 9. When a similar issue was previously examined, it was considered in Sunita Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (Civil Appeal No.9538 of 2025 dated 17.07.2025), which referred to the findings of the Constitutional Bench in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rambha Devi (reported in (2024) 1 SCC 818 ). The view adopted by the three-Judge Bench in Mukund Dewangan (Supra) (reported in (2017) 14 SCC 663 ) was reaffirmed, with the observation that: “181. Our conclusions following the above discussion are as under: 181.1. A driver holding a licence for light motor vehicle (LMV) class, under Section 10(2) (d) for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight under 7500 kg, is permitted to operate a “transport vehicle” without needing additional authorisation 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. 181.2. The second part of Section 3(1), which emphasises 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. 181.3. The additional eligibility criteria specified in the MV Act and the MV Rules generally for driving “transport vehicles” would apply only to those intending to operate vehicles with gross vehicle weight exceeding 7500 kg i.e. “medium goods vehicle”, “medium passenger vehicle”, “heavy goods vehicle” and “heavy passenger vehicle”. 181.4. The decision in Mukund Dewangan is upheld but for reasons as explained by us in this judgment. 181.4. The decision in Mukund Dewangan 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 the MV Rules were not considered in the said judgment.” 10 The appellant, the Insurance Company, erroneously came to a view that the applicant does not hold a valid driving license, failing to consider Sections 10 (2) (d) and (e) of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT . Furthermore, as a result of the accident, the 25-year-old applicant has lost all means of future support. During cross-examination, the Doctor A.W.2 testified that the applicant has 70% disability in his right hand, primarily due to the loss of movement in supination and pronation of the right forearm. This disability has made him unable to perform driving duties, justifying the Deputy Commissioner’s finding of 100% loss of earning capacity. 11. Opposite Party-II has argued that Opposite Party-I sold his vehicle to Opposite Party-III on March 17, 2007. However, because the insurance policy was not transferred to Opposite Party-III, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation to the applicant. During cross-examination, R.W.1 acknowledged that the policy was active and that Ex.B.3, the policy document, was issued in favor of Opposite Party-I, but denied that the policy was valid for Opposite Party-III. Under the applicable law, the person listed as the registered owner is legally regarded as the owner of the vehicle until the records reflect the transfer. The insurer remains responsible for third-party claims. 12. The purpose of third-party insurance is to protect innocent victims, ensuring that they do not suffer due to procedural errors by the owners. The Insurance Company cannot avoid liability by simply claiming that ownership was not transferred from opposite party-I to opposite party-III. The guiding principle is that a victim of a road accident should never be left incapacitated due to procedural oversights in legal form. 13. Based on the above discussions, this Court finds that Exhibits B- 1 to B-3 are legally valid and binding on the opposing party-II, who admits to enjoying or enforcing the vehicle's insurance policy. Therefore, the Deputy Commissioner's findings and reasoning are consistent with established legal principles. 14. In view of the foregoing, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is liable to be dismissed. Therefore, the Deputy Commissioner's findings and reasoning are consistent with established legal principles. 14. In view of the foregoing, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is hereby dismissed, and the order dated 16.02.2009 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Kadapa, in W.C.No.116 of 2007 is confirmed. No costs are awarded. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.