Judgment : Second respondent is the appellant. 2. The first petitioner is the mother, the second petitioner is the wife and petitioners 3 and 4 are the children of the deceased Perumal who, on 25. 1983 was knocked down by a car bearing registration No.TNE. 6323 owned by the first respondent and insured with the second respondent which came in a rash and negligent manner. The deceased sustained head and bodily injuries and was taken to Pallapatti Government Hospital where the doctors advised him to be removed to Government Hospital, Madurai. On his way to Madurai, he has succumbed to the injuries. A case under Sec.304-A of the Indian Penal Code is pending against the first respondent. The deceased was an agriculturist owning more than 15 acres of nanja lands with well and motor pumpset. He owned a house and big hoard of cattle. His average income from the agricultural produce and raising cattle would be about Rs.24,000 per annum. The petitioners are dependents of the deceased for everything. On account of the death of the deceased, the petitioners have lost the financial help and the second petitioner has lost her marital life and there is none to look after the petitioners 3 and 4 who are minors. The petitioners therefore make a claim for a sum of Rs.1,00,000 as compensation. 3. The second respondent has contended as follows: The accident was not due to the rash and negligent driving of the car by its driver the first respondent. The vehicle involved in the accident is a tourist taxi and the person who drove the vehicle had no licence to drive a tourist taxi and he was not authorised by the Authorities to drive a tourist taxi and therefore the respondent cannot be made liable. The respondent has also disputed the age, income and other details in the petition. 4. On the above pleadings, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Karur, after enquiry has held that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the car by its driver, viz., the first respondent. It was also held that at the time of the accident, there was no passengers and the vehicles was not used as a tourist taxi and on that ground, directed the compensation awarded viz., Rs.35,000 to the second petitioner and Rs. It was also held that at the time of the accident, there was no passengers and the vehicles was not used as a tourist taxi and on that ground, directed the compensation awarded viz., Rs.35,000 to the second petitioner and Rs. 10,000 to each of the petitioners 1,3 and 4 payable by the respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally. 5. It is against this order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, the second respondent has come forward with this appeal. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has argued that in so far as this appeal is concerned, he is restricting his arguments only with regard to the liability of the second respondent to pay compensation to the petitioners and he is not adducing any arguments on the question of negligence. According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the mere user of the vehicle which is a tourist taxi for some other purpose does not change the character of the vehicle and the question whether the vehicle was used as a taxi or not need not be considered and suffice it to observe that the driver of the vehicle had no licence to drive the tourist taxi and it is sufficient to hold that the Insurance Company is not liable. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has relied upon the decision reported in United India Insurance Company Limited v. Palaniammal, 1991 A.C.J. 434, wherein the learned Judge has considered the entire authorities on this question as to whether the defence that the Insurance Company is not liable on the ground that when the accident was caused, was not being used as a tourist taxi and has held that mere user of the tourist taxi for the purpose other than that for which it could be used would not affect the character of the vehicle and on that ground, the defence of the insurance Company has to be accepted. His Lordship Mr.Justice V. Ratnam as he then was, has followed the decisions reported in National Insurance Company Limited v. Mahadevayya, 1981 T.N.L.J. 170 and E.Enjana Devi v. Arumugham, 1983 A.C.J. 625 (Mad.) and has distinguished the case reported in Canara Motor and General Insurance Company Limited v. Abdul Hamid Khan Saheb, 1984 A.C.J. 467(Bom.) and has ultimately held that the mere user of the tourist taxi for the purpose other than that for which it could be used, would not affect the character of the vehicle. During the course of his discussion, the learned Judge has also taken into consideration that the accident was caused by a tourist taxi in the reported case driven by a person having the licence to drive a light motor vehicle as in the present case and has held that where the driver had a valid during licence to drive a light motor vehicle the mere use of the tourist taxi, by him, for a purpose other than that for which it could be used is sufficient to hold that the Insurance Company is not liable. The learned Judge has also taken into consideration Sec.3(l) of the Motor Vehicles Act, Sec.2(33) of the Act wherein the transport Vehicle has been defined, Sec.2(25) which defines a public service vehicle as a motor vehicle used or adopted to be used for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward and includes a motor cab, contract carriage and a stage carriage, and has come to the conclusion that where a vehicle had been driven by a driver in contravention of Sec.3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which contemplates an effective driving licence to drive a motor vehicle and if the vehicle happens to be a tourist vehicle, the driving licence should contain a special endorsement and ultimately held that the mere user of the tourist taxi for a purpose other than that for which it could be used, would not affect the character of the vehicle and has allowed the claim of the Insurance Company. In the present case also, the first respondent the owner of the vehicle had no licence with an endorsement to drive a tourist taxi and therefore it cannot be stated that the character of the vehicle cannot be changed on that ground. In the present case also, the first respondent the owner of the vehicle had no licence with an endorsement to drive a tourist taxi and therefore it cannot be stated that the character of the vehicle cannot be changed on that ground. In that view, I am of opinion that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has erred in directing the second respondent also to pay the compensation awarded to the petitioners jointly and severally along with the first respondent. I am of opinion that portion of the order alone is to be set aside since the appellant has not challenged the finding of the Tribunal that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the first respondent, the owner. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the direction given by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Karur directing the second respondent to deposit the compensation along with the first respondent jointly and severally with interest at 9% per annum into one of the direction given to the first respondent alone to deposit the compensation awarded to be deposited with interest at 12% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. In other respects, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.