VALLINAYAGAM, J. ( 1 ) THE above appeal is preferred by the insurance company against the award in m. v. c. No. 732 of 1990 on the file of m. a. c. t. , mandya, raising a question about the liability on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle concerned in the accident was not having valid driving licence to drive heavy passenger vehicle. ( 2 ) ANSWERING the question against the appellant, the tribunal held that the driver had valid driving licence for driving heavy passenger vehicle. Rejecting the contention that there was violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy in question, the tribunal held that the driver having heavy vehicle licence has to undergo more test than a driver to get ordinary driving licence of light vehicle. The tribunal has found that no authority was cited in support of the contention and held that the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. ( 3 ) QUESTIONING the above finding, the learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the division bench ruling of this court in m. f. a. No. 933 of 1992 disposed of on 8. 12. 1993. The division bench in turn relied upon an unreported decision in Soubhagya V. Chandrakant Shivaprasad wherein it is held as follows:" (2) the appellant has also challenged the award of the tribunal in making r-2, insurance company not liable to pay the amount of the award. But the finding of the tribunal is that the driver was holding licence to drive only the passenger vehicles and not heavy goods truck. The evidence of pw 1, the motor vehicle inspector, clearly establishes that the driver had no licence to drive heavy goods vehicle. In view of this finding of the tribunal, r-2, the insurance company cannot be made liable to pay the compensation awarded to the appellant on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver in driving the heavy goods vehicle which was involved in the accident. " ( 4 ) IN that case the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident was holding a driving licence which permit him to drive heavy passengers vehicle only. The vehicle which was involved in the accident was a goods vehicle. That driver did not have licence to drive the goods vehicle. " ( 4 ) IN that case the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident was holding a driving licence which permit him to drive heavy passengers vehicle only. The vehicle which was involved in the accident was a goods vehicle. That driver did not have licence to drive the goods vehicle. Following the above principle, the division bench has set aside the liability of the insurance company. ( 5 ) THE counsel for the respondent was not able to place any other authority before this court in contravention of the above dictum. Thus following the above ruling, the appeal is allowed and the liability of the insurance company is set aside. The amount deposited shall stand refunded to the appellant. Appeal allowed. --- *** --- .