JUDGMENT :

1. The present First Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, by the present appellant - Insurance Company, being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 07.05.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Surat in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 465 of 2004, by which, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.1,55,000/- with 9% interest per annum to the claimants by the opponents i.e. driver, owner and insurance company, jointly and severally. Therefore, the present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company.

2. Brief facts of the present case are that, on 29.05.2004, when the deceased - Minor Ajay, aged about 6 years old, was trying to cross the road, one Tempo bearing registration No.GJ-5-UU-3624 came with rash and negligent manner and dash with him. Minor Ajay sustained injuries and ultimately, he succumbed to the injuries. The parents have lost their son due to the said accident. Therefore, the parents and younger brother have filed a claim petition before the Tribunal for compensation of Rs.2,05,000/-. Notices were served to the opponents, but opponents No.1 and 2 have not filed their written statement, whereas opponent No.3 - Insurance Company has filed its written statement before the Tribunal and denied the claim. Oral as well as documentary evidence were taken on record by the Tribunal. After considering the submissions of the rival parties, the Tribunal has held liable all the opponents, jointly and severally and awarded compensation as stated hereinabove, to be paid to the claimants. Hence, the present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company before this Court.

3. Learned advocate Ms. Lilu Bhaya for the appellant - Insurance Company has submitted that the appellant has examined the officer of the RTO - Ms. Nishaebn Anilbhai Mehta, who has specifically contended that the driver was not havign the endorsement to driver transport vehicle and for driving goods vehicle as such endorsement is necessary. She has further submitted that since the driver is not holding valid license, the insurance company is not liable to pay the amount. She has further submitted that the Tribunal has erred in coming to the conclusion that though the driver was not authorised to drive the tempo - goods carrying vehicle, even then the Tribunal has held that it cannot be considered as breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. She has also submitted that the Tribunal has erred in granting the compensation of Rs.1,55,000/- to the claimants with 9% per annum interest and therefore, she has submitted that this appeal may be allowed.

4.1 In the present case, the notices of admission were served to the respondents, but they have chosen not to appear before this Court. Therefore, I have considered the submissions of Ms. Bhaya, learned advocate for the appellant and I have also considered the impugned judgment and reasoning given by the Tribunal. I have also gone through the record and proceedings of the Tribunal. It is clearly found from the record that the issue involves in the present appeal is only with regard to not having endorsement by the driver in the license and also not holding valid driving license. Accordingly, at the relevant point of time, the position of law was different and therefore, the appeal was admitted. Now, the position of law is well settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in AIR 2017 SC 3668, more particularly Paras : 43, 45 and 46, which are as under :

"43. Section 10(2) (a) to (j) lays down the classes of vehicles to be driven not a specific kind of motor vehicles in that class. If a vehicle falls into any of the categories, a licence holder holding licence to drive the class of vehicle can drive all vehicles of that particular class. No separate endorsement is to be obtained nor provided, if the vehicle falls in any of the particular classes of section 10(2). This Court has rig