JUDGMENT :

Sunil K. Kotwal, J.

1. This appeal is directed by the insurance company against the judgment and award, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nanded, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.551 of 2009, where compensation of Rs.1085950/- was granted under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as, "the MV Act").

2. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are original claimants and Respondent No.4 is original respondent No.1 in claim petition.

3. The parties hereinafter are referred as per their original status in claim petition.

4. Facts, leading to the institution of this appeal are that deceased Sharda was the wife of claimant No. 1 and mother of claimant Nos. 2 and 3. On 12.4.2009 at about 7 to 7.30 p.m. the deceased was proceeding towards Nanded from Loha, as pillion rider on the motor cycle driven by Ananda Babarao Mate. When they reached to Harsad Pati, the tractor No. MH26/K6534, attached with trolley, dashed against the motor cycle. In the result, deceased sustained injuries, which resulted into her death. Therefore, the claimants filed Motor Accident Claim Petition before the Tribunal at Nanded clawing compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-.

5. Original Respondent No. 1, who is registered owner of the offending tractor and trolley, though appeared, did not resist the claim petition by filling written statement. Only original respondent No. 2 insurance company filed written statement (Exh. 17) and raised all statutory defences available to it. Important defence raised by the insurance company is that the driver of the offending tractor did not hold valid and effective driving license at the time of accident and thereby respondent No. 1 owner committed breach of the condition of policy of the insurance.

6. After considering the evidence placed on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of offending tractor and respondent No. 2 did not prove that the driver of the offending tractor did not hold effective and valid driving license. In the result, joint and several liability to pay compensation was saddled on respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

7. Heard Shri S.G. Chapalgaonkar, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri A.S. Barlota, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 original claimants and Shri U.B. Bilolikar, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 owner of the offending vehicle.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that though insurance company raised defence before the Tribunal that driver of the offending tractor did not hold driving license for driving transport or goods vehicle, the driving license placed on record indicates that the driver of the tractor held effective and valid driving license to drive light motor vehicle. He fairly concedes that in view of recent judgment of the Apex Court in "Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited" [AIR 2017 SC 3668], driver of the vehicle requires to hold license with respect to the vehicle and not with respect to type of vehicles. In one class of vehicles, there may be different kinds of vehicles. If they fall in same class of vehicles, no separate endorsement is required to drive such vehicle. Light motor vehicle includes transport vehicle also. A person holding license to drive light motor vehicle can drive all class of vehicles including transport vehicle.

9. In view of this settled legal position, when the driving license of the driver of the offending tractor (Exh. 41) shows that the driver was holding driving license to drive light motor vehicle like tractor throughout India and when this license is valid from 31.8.2004 to 30.8.2024, in view of verdict of Apex Court in above cited authority, the defence taken by the insurance company holds no substance.

10. Even learned counsel for appellant assailed the judgment of the Tribunal only on the count of quantum of compensation. He submits th