JUDGMENT : PARTH PRATEEM SAHU, J. 1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the case is heard finally. 2. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) is filed by the appellant (owner) of the offending vehicle- Bolero Pick-up No. CG-12-AN-4525 challenging the award dated 23.04.2019 passed by learned Third Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bastar at Jagdalpur in Claim Case No.20 of 2018, whereby claim application filed by the respondents No.1 to 3/claimants has been partly allowed. 3. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that respondents No. 1 to3/claimants filed an application under Section 166 (1) and Section 140 (1) of the Act of 1988 before the learned Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bastar at Jagdalpur, pleading therein that on 25/06/2017, Lachhandai, along with her husband Shankar Besra, was returning home on a motorcycle after meeting her relative. When they were standing along with motorcycle on the side of the road near Hatguda Cricket Ground, at the same time, non-applicant No.1/driver of the Bolero vehicle bearing registration number CG 12 AN 4525 driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the motorcycle driven by claimant- Shankar from the front, caused an accident in which Shankar Besra suffered serious injuries on his head, legs and other parts of the body. Lachhandai suffered severe injuries on her head, legs and other parts of the body, she was taken to Maharani Hospital, Jagdalpur for treatment where Lachhandai died. The applicants are husband and sons of Lachhandai. She was about 35 years old, healthy and hardworking, running a vegetable business and earning monthly income of Rs. 10,000/-. Her sudden death has caused extreme physical, mental and financial loss to the applicants. Hence, they claimed for total compensation of Rs. 26,70,000/- from non-applicants under various heads. 4. Non-applicant No.1, after receiving the notice of claim application, sought time on 12/04/2018 to appear in person and file Vakalatnama of his Advocate. The reply was not submitted by him on 28/04/2018 and due to his absence on the said date, he was proceeded ex-parte. 5. Non-applicant No.2 in its written statement had denied the pleadings made in the claim application and pleaded that accident happened due to carelessness of Shakar Besra while driving his motorcycle. The accident did not happen due to the fault of non-applicant No.1. 5. Non-applicant No.2 in its written statement had denied the pleadings made in the claim application and pleaded that accident happened due to carelessness of Shakar Besra while driving his motorcycle. The accident did not happen due to the fault of non-applicant No.1. The accident happened due to collision of two vehicles. At the time of the accident, non-applicant No.1 had a valid and effective driving license. On the date of accident, the vehicle was insured with non-applicant No.3, hence, liability to pay amount of compensation will be upon non-applicant no.3. 6. Non-applicant No.3 in its written statement also denied the pleadings made in the claim application and pleaded that the accident happened due to careless driving of the motorcycle driver. The accident happened between a Bolero vehicle and the motorcycle. Non-applicant No.1 did not have a valid and effective driving license to drive the Bolero vehicle CG 12 AN 4525 on the date and time of the incident. Non-applicant No.2 did not have RC book, fitness, permit of the vehicle on the date and time of the incident. The vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, hence, claim against non-applicant No.3 be dismissed. 7. Learned Claims Tribunal, on appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties, held that on the date of accident, offending vehicle was being driven by non-applicant No.1 rashly and negligently, due to which, an accident occurred in which Lachandai sustained grievous injuries and died. Recording a finding that breach of the conditions of insurance policy was found to be proved, learned Claims Tribunal held non-applicants No. 1 & 2 (Driver and Owner of offending vehicle) liable to pay amount of compensation to claimants and calculated Rs.8,76,400/- on different heads. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that this appeal is filed by owner of the offending vehicle challenging the impugned award passed by learned Claims Tribunal fastening liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon owner and driver of the offending vehicle i.e. non-applicants No. 1 & 2. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that this appeal is filed by owner of the offending vehicle challenging the impugned award passed by learned Claims Tribunal fastening liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon owner and driver of the offending vehicle i.e. non-applicants No. 1 & 2. He submits that learned Tribunal while deciding the issue whether the offending vehicle was driven in breach of insurance policy condition, concluded that on the date of accident, driver of the offending vehicle was not possessed with valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle which is goods carrying commercial vehicle, however, he was possessed with licence to drive light motor vehicle only and secondly appellant failed to produce valid permit of the vehicle on the date of accident authorizing him to ply it on pubic place/public road. She submits that so far as the first ground of exonerating the insurance company from its liability, that driver of offending vehicle was not possessed with valid and effective driving licence is concerned, offending vehicle is Bolero Pick-up vehicle. According to copy of insurance policy marked as Ex.D-1 would show that type of commercial vehicle is mentioned as ‘Goods Carrying’ vehicle; Type of body : Open; seating capacity including driver: 2. The gross vehicle weight is mentioned as 2510 kg. She contended that issue with regard to person possessed with licence to drive light motor vehicle, can also drive the light goods vehicle or light passenger vehicle though the type of vehicle is commercial vehicle or transport vehicle, was considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2017) 14 SCC 663 and recently in the case of Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Limited vs. Rambha Devi & Ors. (2025) 3 SCC 95 . She next contended that exoneration of insurance company from its liability on the ground of permit is also not sustainable as weight of the offending vehicle is below 3000 kg and therefore under the provision of Section 66 (3) (i) of the Act of 1988, no permit is required for plying the vehicle weight of which does not exceed 3000 kg. 9. Learned counsel for respondent No.4/Insurance Company submits that that learned Claims Tribunal has passed impugned award upon appreciation of evidence on record . 9. Learned counsel for respondent No.4/Insurance Company submits that that learned Claims Tribunal has passed impugned award upon appreciation of evidence on record . The claimants failed to produce copy of permit either before the investigating agency i.e. police or before the Tribunal. He however do not dispute submission of learned counsel for the appellant with respect to decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Mukund Dewangan (supra) and Rambha Devi (supra). He further submits that he cannot dispute the provision under Section 66 of the Act of 1988. 10. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3/claimants would support the submission of learned counsel for the appellant. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of claim case. 12. Perusal of the record would show that copy of insurance policy is marked as Ex.D-1 in which gross vehicle weight is mentioned as 2510 kg. It is goods carrying vehicle open body. Copy of policy is also marked as Ex.C-1. Perusal of the extract of driving licence as produced before the Claims Tribunal would show that non-applicant No.1 was possessing the licence authorizing him to drive the motor- vehicle with gear, non-transport light motor vehicle and date of issue is 09.03.2011. Its validity was up to to 08.03.2031. From the aforementioned facts and evidence available on record it is not disputed that it is not a case of no licence but non-applicant No.1 was possessing licence authorizing him to drive the class of vehicle as mentioned above. It is also not in dispute that the vehicle which is being driven on the date of accident by non-applicant No.1 under licence Ex.C-1 was a commercial goods carrying vehicle, however, gross weight of vehicle is mentioned as 2510 kg only i.e. below 7500 kg. and, therefore, it comes with the definition of Light Motor Vehicle (Light Goods Vehicle). 13. The issue whether the person holding the licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle is also authorized to drive light goods vehicle came up for consideration before Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra) wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under: “60.2. 13. The issue whether the person holding the licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle is also authorized to drive light goods vehicle came up for consideration before Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra) wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under: “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.” 14. Recently, in case Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Limited vs. Rambha Devi & Ors. (2025) 3 SCC 95 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has further observed that person holding licence to drive the light motor vehicle is also authorized to drive the goods vehicle coming within the weight of light motor vehicle. Relevant paragraph in the case of Rambha Devi (supra) is extracted below for ready reference: “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 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 (2017) [Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2017) 14 SCC 663 ] 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. 182 . The reference is answered in the above terms. The Registry is directed to list the matters before the appropriate Bench after obtaining directions from Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India.” 15. For the aforementioned discussions and the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra) and Rambha Devi (supra), in the opinion of this Court, finding recorded by learned Claims Tribunal that on the date of accident non-applicant No.1 was not possessed with valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle is not sustainable and it is accordingly set aside. 16. So far as the second ground as considered by learned Claims Tribunal of exonerating the insurance company holding that owner of vehicle failed to produce copy of valid permit of the vehicle on the date of accident is concerned, under Section 66 of the Act of 1988 provides for necessity of permit. Relevant provision of Section 66 is extracted below for ready reference. “66 . Relevant provision of Section 66 is extracted below for ready reference. “66 . Necessity for permits: (1) No owner of a motor vehicle shall use or permit the use of the vehicle as a transport vehicle in any public place whether or not such vehicle is actually carrying any passengers or goods save in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or countersigned by a Regional or State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority authorising him the use of the vehicle in that place in the manner in which the vehicle is being used: Provided that a stage carriage permit shall, subject to any conditions that may be specified in the permit, authorise the use of the vehicle as a contract carriage: Provided further that a stage carriage permit may, subject to any conditions that may be specified in the permit, authorise the use of the vehicle as a goods carriage either when carrying passengers or not: Provided also that a goods carriage permit shall, subject to any conditions that may be specified in the permit, authorise the holder to use the vehicle for the carriage of goods for or in connection with a trade or business carried on by him. Provided also that where a transport vehicle has been issued any permit or permits, as well as a licence under this Act, such vehicle may be used either under the permit or permits, so issued to it, or under such licence, at the discretion of the vehicle owner.” (2)The holder of a goods carriage permit may use the vehicle, for drawing of any trailer or semi-trailer not owned by him, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed: Provided that the holder of a permit of any articulated vehicle may use the prime-mover of that articulated vehicle for any other semi-trailer. (3) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply- (a) x x x x x (b) x x x x x (i) to any goods vehicle, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 3,000 kilograms; x x x x x x 17. Section 66 (3) (i) of the Act of 1988 provides that sub-Section (1) of shall not apply to any goods vehicle, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 3000 k.g.. Section 66 (3) (i) of the Act of 1988 provides that sub-Section (1) of shall not apply to any goods vehicle, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 3000 k.g.. The necessity of permit is provided under sub-Section (1) of Section 66 and under sub-Section (3) of Section 66 for the category and class of vehicle as mentioned therein. Sub-Section (1) has not been made applicable to Section 66 (3) of the Act of 1988. From bare perusal of Section 66 (3) (i) it is apparent that there is no requirement of permit for plying the goods carrying vehicle having gross vehicle weight less than 3000 kg. 18. It appears that learned Tribunal escaped consideration of the aforementioned provision and have recorded erroneous finding that the owner of vehicle on public road was not possessed with valid permit to ply the goods carrying vehicle on public road and exonerated the insurance company on that ground alone which is not sustainable and is hereby set aside. 19. As the finding of learned Tribunal for exonerating the insurance company from its liability is set aside, now to satisfy the award it will be liability upon the insurance company i.e. respondent No.4/non-applicant No.3 to satisfy the award of compensation as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. It is ordered accordingly. The appellant can recover the amount paid to the claimants (if any) from insurer. 20. The appeal is accordingly allowed to the extent and in the manner indicated above.