JUDGMENT Per A.C. ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN, J. This appeal has been preferred against the award passed in M.C.O.P. No. 26 of 1997, dated 23.3.1998, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Sub-Court, Devakottai. The second respondent in M.C.O.P. No. 26 of 1997, is the appellant herein. The short facts of the case are as follows: 2. On 10.6.1994, when the claimant was proceeding in an auto bearing Registration No. TN-63-6361 from Karaikudi to Devakottai, the auto driver rashly and negligently had driven the auto and dashed against the road side tree, resulting a fracture on the left leg below the knee to the claimant. So, the claimant had come forward with the claim application claiming Rs. 2 lakhs towards compensation. 3. The first respondent remained ex-parte. The second respondent in his counter has stated that all the averments in the petition are to be strictly proved by the claimants and that the auto driver had valid driving licence at the time of the accident to drive an auto. 4. Before the learned Tribunal, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Exhibits P.1 to P.5 were marked on the side of the claimants and on the side of the respondents, R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined and Exhibit R.1 was marked. 5. After going through both oral and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal has come to a conclusion that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto bearing Registration No. TN-63-6361 and has awarded Rs. 81,000/- towards compensation to the claimants with 12% interest from the date of petition till the date of realisation with costs. 6. Aggrieved by the award of compensation, the insurance company/the second respondent had preferred this appeal. 7. Now, the point for determination in this appeal is whether the auto driver had valid driving licence to drive the auto and that non-wearing of the badge to drive an auto while holding the driving licence to drive the light motor vehicles, will fasten the insured of the auto/the appellant herein, to indemnify the insurer, as against the third parties to pay, compensation? The Point: 8. The Point: 8. The learned counsel for the appellant would fairly concede that the non-wearing of a required badge at the time of driving of the auto, while holding the driving licence to drive light motor vehicles, is only a minor fault and that it will not absolve the liability of the insured from paying the compensation to the third parties, in a case of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto which involved in the accident. In this occasion, the observation of the learned Tribunal at paragraph 6 of the award is relevant, wherein the learned Tribunal has observed that R. W. 1 in his evidence in the cross-examination has admitted that he is not aware whether the driver of the auto, obtained the relevant badge required for him, who is possessing valid driving licence to drive light motor vehicles to drive an auto in R.T.O’s Office in Sivagangai or any other R.T.O’s Office. The learned counsel for the appellant to show his fairness, has produced the citation, National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Swaran Singh and Others 2004 ACJ 1 and represented that minor breaches of licence conditions, such as want of medical fitness certificate, requirement about age of the driver and the like not found to have been the direct cause of the accident, would be treated as minor breaches or inconsequential deviation in the matter of use of vehicles. Such minor and inconsequential deviations with regard to licensing conditions would not constitute sufficient ground to deny the benefit of coverage of insurance to the third parties. The relevant observations are at paragraphs 82 and 83, which are extracted hereunder: ""Section 3 of the Act casts an obligation on a driver to hold an effective driving licence for the type of vehicle which he intends to drive. Section 10 of the Act enables Central Government to prescribe the forms of driving licences for various categories of vehicles mentioned in sub-section (2) of said Section. The various types of vehicles described for which a driver may obtain a licence for one or more of them are: (a) motor cycle without gear; (b) motor cycle with gear; (c) invalid carriage; (d) light motor vehicle; (e) transport vehicle; (f) road-roller; and (g) motor vehicle of other specified description. The various types of vehicles described for which a driver may obtain a licence for one or more of them are: (a) motor cycle without gear; (b) motor cycle with gear; (c) invalid carriage; (d) light motor vehicle; (e) transport vehicle; (f) road-roller; and (g) motor vehicle of other specified description. The definition clause in Section 2 of the Act defines various categories of vehicles which are covered in broad types mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 10. They are ‘goods carriage’, ‘heavy goods vehicle’, ‘heavy passenger motor vehicle’, ‘invalid carriage’, ‘light motor vehicle’, ‘maxicab’, ‘medium goods vehicle’, ‘medium passenger motor vehicle’, ‘motor cab’, ‘motor cycle’, ‘omnibus’, ‘private service vehicle’, ‘semitrailer’, ‘tourist vehicle’, ‘tractor’, ‘trailer’ and ‘transport vehicle’. In claims for compensation for accidents, various kinds of breaches with regard to the conditions of driving licences arise for consideration before the Tribunal. A person possessing a driving licence for ‘motor cycle without gear’, for which he has no licence. Cases may also arise where holder of driving licence for ‘light motor vehicle’ is found to be driving a ‘maxicab’, ‘motor-cab’ or ‘omnibus’ for which he has no licence. In each case on evidence led before the Claims Tribunal, a decision has to be taken whether the fact of the driver possessing licence for one type of vehicle but found driving another type of vehicle, was the main or contributory cause of accident. If on facts, it is found that accident was caused solely because of some other unforeseen or intervening causes like mechanical failures and similar other causes having no nexus with driver not possessing requisite type of licence, the insurer will not be allowed to avoid its liability merely for technical breach of conditions concerning driving licence. We have construed and determined the scope of sub-clause (ii) of sub-section (2)(a) of Section 149 of the Act. Minor breaches of licence conditions, such as want of medical fitness certificate, requirement about age of the driver and the like not found to have been the direct cause of the accident, would be treated as minor breaches or inconsequential deviation in the matter of use of vehicles. Such minor and inconsequential deviations with regard to licensing conditions would not constitute sufficient ground to deny the benefit of coverage of insurance to the third parties.“ 9. Such minor and inconsequential deviations with regard to licensing conditions would not constitute sufficient ground to deny the benefit of coverage of insurance to the third parties.“ 9. The learned counsel for the appellant has also relied on the decision in United India Insurance Co., Ltd., v. Palaniammal and Others 1991 ACJ 434 , wherein also it was held that if a person having a valid driving licence to drive light motor vehicle, had driven a taxi which involved in the accident and in such case, the insured of the tourist taxi is liable to pay compensation to the third parties, was considered and was held that, the main 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 that the insurance company is liable to pay compensation to the third parties. The facts of the case is that, the driver of the vehicle which involved in an accident, had valid driving licence to drive the light motor vehicles, but he had driven a tourist taxi which involved in the accident. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that under Section 96(2)(b)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act as well as under the terms and conditions of the appellant, the insured is not liable to pay compensation. The learned Judge had held as follows: ”Reliance in this connection was also placed upon the decisions in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sugantha Kunthalambla, 1981 ACJ 302 (Madras), National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mahadevayya, (1981) TNLJ 170 and E. Enjana Devi v. Arumugham, 1983 ACJ 625 (Madras). Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the owner of the vehicle submitted that at the time of the accident, the vehicle in question was not being used as a tourist taxi for the purpose of transporting passengers and under those circumstances, the vehicle should be regarded as only a light motor vehicle to drive which the driver had a valid licence and, therefore, the insurance company cannot be permitted to escape its liability for the payment of the compensation. Reference in this connection was also made to the decision reported in Canara Motor and General Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Abdul Hamid Khan Saheb, 1984 ACJ 467 (Bombay). In order to appreciate the rival contentions thus raised, it would be necessary to notice a few undisputed facts. Reference in this connection was also made to the decision reported in Canara Motor and General Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Abdul Hamid Khan Saheb, 1984 ACJ 467 (Bombay). In order to appreciate the rival contentions thus raised, it would be necessary to notice a few undisputed facts. The vehicle in question bearing Registration No. MDG 3133 had been registered as a tourist taxi and the insurance cover in respect of this vehicle was also on that footing. At the time of accident on 19.5.1981, the driver, who drove the vehicle, had a valid driving licence in respect of a light motor vehicle and it was long subsequently, on 21.6.1982, a licence for driving a tourist taxi was issued to him. The question that now arises for consideration is whether in the background of these undisputed facts, the insurance company is entitled to avoid its liability, on the terms of the policy issued by it as well under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. Considering the basis on which the insurance company sought to avoid its liability, the Tribunal proceeded to fastern liability on the insurance company on the ground that when the accident took place, the vehicle was on a test run and was not used as a tourist taxi and, therefore, the licence issued to the driver for driving a light motor vehicle would suffice to hold that the vehicle, at the time of the accident was driven by a duly licensed driver. In other words, according to the Tribunal, though the vehicle was registered as a tourist taxi, at the time when the accident took place, it was not used as such and, therefore, the driving of the tourist taxi by a driver duly licensed to drive a light motor vehicle was in order and covered by the terms of the policy as well. It would be necessary at this stage to notice a few relevant definitions in the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and also a review of its provisions. Section 2 of the Act defines the different kinds of vehicles like articulated vehicle, goods vehicle, heavy goods vehicle, heavy passenger motor vehicle, light motor vehicle, medium goods vehicle, medium passenger motor vehicle, motor car, motor cycle, motor vehicles etc. Section 2 of the Act defines the different kinds of vehicles like articulated vehicle, goods vehicle, heavy goods vehicle, heavy passenger motor vehicle, light motor vehicle, medium goods vehicle, medium passenger motor vehicle, motor car, motor cycle, motor vehicles etc. It is obvious from this that the purpose of defining the different types of motor vehicles is to describe and classify them into specific or particular categories, predominantly related to their user as well. It would be now useful to refer to Section 2(5-A) which defines a driving licence as meaning the document issued by a competent authority under Chapter II of the Act, authorising the person specified therein to drive a motor vehicle or a motor vehicle of any specific class or description. Sections 2(8) and 2(9) of the Act define goods vehicle and heavy goods vehicle. Section 2(9-A) sets out the definition of a heavy passenger motor vehicle. Under Section 2(13) of the Act, a light motor vehicle means a transport vehicle or omnibus the registered laden weight of which, or a motor car or tractor, the unladen weight of which, does not exceed 4,000 kilograms. Medium goods vehicle and medium passenger motor vehicle are defined in Sections 2(14) and 2(14-A) respectively. Under Section 2(15) of the Act, motor cab means any motor vehicle constructed, adapted or used to carry not more than six passengers excluding the driver, for hire or reward. Section 3 of the Act prohibits a person from driving a motor vehicle in any public place, unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorising him to drive the vehicle and the further provision is to the effect that no person shall so drive a motor vehicle as a paid employee or shall so drive a transport vehicle, unless his driving licence specifically entitles him to do so. Under Section 8 of the Act relating to the form and contents of driving licence, the different kinds of vehicles in respect of which a driving licence may be issued, as entitling the holder to drive a motor vehicle belonging to one or other of the categories enumerated therein, are given. In the background of the above statutory provisions, it is clearly established that there is a nexus between the classification of the vehicles into different categories and also the issue of driving licences to persons to drive the vehicles belonging to different categories. In the background of the above statutory provisions, it is clearly established that there is a nexus between the classification of the vehicles into different categories and also the issue of driving licences to persons to drive the vehicles belonging to different categories. A light motor vehicle or a goods vehicle, answering specific description in the Act, would continue to be the same kind of vehicle, though the owner of the vehicle may attempt to put it to a different use. In this case, the Tribunal had taken the view that at the time when the accident took place, the vehicle in question was not used for the purpose of transporting passengers and therefore, it could not be regarded as motorcab driven by a person, who had a licence only for driving a light motor vehicle and not a tourist taxi. Earlier, it had been pointed out how a varied user of vehicles on specific or even on a few occasions, would not make any difference, whatever be their categorisation as different kinds of vehicles under the provisions of the Act and a stray or steady different user would not also have the effect of altering or changing the statutory nomenclature conferred on the vehicle. Viewed in that light, the mere user of the tourist taxi or motor car on the date of the accident, in this case, for the purpose other than that for which it could be used, would not have, in any manner, affected the character of the vehicle in question, as a motorcab or tourist taxi. In such a situation, unless the tourist taxi or a motorcab was driven by a person duly licensed to drive such a vehicle, it would follow that the driving of that vehicle by a person not authorised to drive a tourist taxi or motorcab would be by person not duly licensed within the meaning of the provisions of the Act and also under the terms of the policy of insurance in this case."" 10. Apart from this, there is no point raised before this Court, either regarding the quantum of the compensation or regarding the negligence of the driver of the auto. 11. Apart from this, there is no point raised before this Court, either regarding the quantum of the compensation or regarding the negligence of the driver of the auto. 11. Hence, I hold on the point that the driver of the auto bearing Registration No. TN-63-6361, who was holding that light motor vehicle driving licence, for having driven an auto without wearing a badge, will fasten the insured to indemnify the insurer as against the third parties to pay the compensation. 12. Before parting with this case, this C6urt records its appreciation of the learned counsel for the appellant Mr. G.Prabhu Rajadurai, who in all fairness admitted that the appellant has no case and also produced the above cited judgment before this Court to render justice to the parties. 13. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the award passed in M.C.O.P. No. 26 of 1997, dated 23.3.1998, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Sub-Court, Devakottai. The claimant is permitted to withdraw the balance of the award amount with accrued interest and costs. No costs.