Subhash B. Adi, J.

These two appeals arise out of the common judgment and award in M.V.C.Nos.8458 and 8459 of 2005 dated 8th November 2006 on the file of M.A.C.T., Bangalore.

2. Respondent No.2 in both the cases are the claimants. On 11.11.2005 at about 7.45 p.m., both claimants were proceeding on scooter as a rider and pillion rider on the extreme left side of road. When it reached GK.Paints factory, a tempo bearing No.KA-03/A-4874 came from opposite direction driven in high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against both the claimants, as a result of which, they fell down and sustained grievous injury. They were taken to Doddaballapura Government Hospital, from there they were shifted to Bowring Hospital, they took treatment as inpatient and also as outpatient.

3. Before the Tribunal, claimants got themselves examined as PWs-1 and 2. They also examined one doctor as PW-3. Exs.P1 to P5 were marked in their evidence and on behalf of the Insurance Company, one N.Krishna Murthy was examined and Exs.R1 and R2 were marked. The Tribunal on consideration of the evidence granted compensation of Rs.2,43,000/- in M.V.C.No.8458/2005 and Rs.2,78,000/-in M.V.C.No.8459/2005.

4. Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company submits that, the Tribunal has found that, the driver of the offending vehicle had only licence to drive light motor vehicle. However, the vehicle involved in the accident is a goods transport vehicle and he had no valid licence to drive the goods transport vehicle. As such, the risk is not covered under the policy. He also submitted that, a specific contention was raised before the Tribunal. The Tribunal considering the judgment of the Apex Court reported in National Insurance Company Limited Vs Gadigewwa &. Others 2005 ACJ page 40 has held that, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation.

5. In support of his case, he relied on a judgment reported in New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir & Another 2008 AIR SCW 4048 and submitted that, the licence granted to transport vehicle is different from licence granted to light motor vehicle and submitted that, the licence granted to light motor vehicle is for 20 years whereas, in respect of transport vehicle, it is only 3 years. In this regard, he relied on para-10 of the said judgment and submitted that, the contention raised by the Insurance Company in the said case that, the driver of the light motor vehicle cannot be said to have held licence to drive goods transport vehicle is accepted by the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court has held that the Insurance Company is not liable.

6. Per contra, learned Counsel for the claimants relied on a judgment reported in Oriental Insurance Co. Vs Zaharulnisha & Others 2008 AIR SCW 3251 and submitted that, the Apex Court considering the judgment reported in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Swaran Singh (2004) 3 SCC 297 has held that, as against third party, the insurer is a deemed judgment debtor in respect of liability. Even in case of defective licence, the insurer can satisfy the claim of the claimants and recover the same from the owner. In this regard, she relied on para-16 of the said judgment. She also relied on another judgment of the Apex Court reported in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Annappa Irappa Nesaria And Others 2008(2) ACJ 721 and submitted that, light motor vehicle may not be a transport vehicle and light motor vehicle continued to cover both light passenger carriage vehicle and light goods carriage vehicle. The driver, who had valid licence to drive light motor vehicle, is authorized to drive light transport vehicle as well. Relying on these two judgments, learned Counsel for the claimants submitted that, even assuming that, the licence granted to the driver of the offending vehicle is light motor vehicle, since the vehicle involved is medium transport vehicle, he was authorized to drive the said vehicle and submitted that, even in case where the licence i