JUDGMENT This is an appeal u/s 173 of the M.V. Act, 1988, against the award dt. 28.4.97, passed by the 5th Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur, in Claim Case No. 79/89, holding the appellant/Insurance Company liable to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the respondent/claimant with interest @ 12% per annum. The claimant/respondent No. 1, filed an application u/s 110 of the M.V. Act, 1939, for grant of compensation of Rs. 2 lacs for injuries sustained by him in an accident with the Car bearing registration no. MKS 88, on 5.7.86. It was alleged that the claimant/respondent No. 1 was going from main road to Turihatri road when offending car bearing registration no. MKS 88, owned by the respondent no. 2, and being driven by the respondent No. 3, in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the claimant near Lohar Chowk, causing him grevious injuries with multiple fracture, which resulted in permanent disability to the claimant/respondent. The claimant was admitted to D.K. Hospital, Raipur, for his treatment. The accident was reported to the local police station at Raipur, and a case u/s 279, 337 and 338 was registered against the Driver/respondent No. 3. The claim was opposed by the appellant/Insurance Company. The specific defence of the appellant/Insurance Company was that the respondent No. 3, was holding licence for driving light Motor Vehicles, but not the offending car, which was being used as a transport vehicle and was registered as Taxi. The Claims Tribunal, however, held the appellant/Insurance Company liable to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the respondent/claimant with interest @ 12 % per annum. Smt. A. Ruprah, counsel for the appellant, has contended that the respondent No. 3, driver of the offending vehicle, was holding the licence for driving Light Motor Vehicles, whereas he was driving a transport vehicle in breach of provisions of Section 3 of the M.V. Act and also in breach of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. Therefore the appellant insurance company was not liable to pay the compensation. A persual of the driving licence of the respondent No. 3/ driver reveals that he was authorised to drive only Light Motor Vehicle. Therefore the appellant insurance company was not liable to pay the compensation. A persual of the driving licence of the respondent No. 3/ driver reveals that he was authorised to drive only Light Motor Vehicle. The admitted position in the case is that the offending vehicle was registered as Taxi at the relevant time and the same was being driven by the respondent No. 3 in flagrant violation of the provisions of Section 3 of the M.V. Act, 1939. Section 3 of the M.V. Act, reads as under :- "Section 3. Necessity for driving licence -- No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorising him to drive the vehicle, and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle (other than a motor car hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under sub-section (2) of Section 75), unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do." The respondent no. 3 was thus, not authorised to drive the offending vehicle in flagrant violation of the mandatory provision of law. The appellant/Insurance Company, therefore, cannot be held liable to pay compensation to the claimant/respondent. In this connection reference may also be made in case of Manoharlal Jamatmal Sindhi and another v. Ranguba and others (1994 ACJ 1280). For the reasons, mentioned aforesaid, the appeal is allowed, but without costs.