Judgment :- The National Insurance Company Limited, Tirnelveli Branch, which is the insurer for the Taxi bearing Regn.No.TCW 9958, the owner of which is one Mariappan, respondent No.5, is the appellant. The claimants have filed claim petition for compensation towards the accidental death of one Ponnaiah, husband and father of respondents 1 and 2 respectively and son of Respondents 3 and 4, who was travelling as a passenger in the said taxi. The said event happened on 01.02.1995 at about 2.30 p.m. in Adaikalappattinam. The award passed by the Tribunal is to the extent of Rs.1,45,000/-. It is now agitated by the appellant on the ground that there was contravention of the policy conditions of the said tourist taxi 2. It is the main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant insurance company that as seen from Ex.B-1, the policy pertained to the said car and the Car is a tourist taxi; but the said vehicle was driven by a driver who was not holding a valid licence to drive such a tourist taxi. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, though the driver was holding a licence to drive a light motor vehicle, there was no endorsement by the competent authority authorising him to drive a tourist taxi and therefore the insurer is not liable to pay the compensation. 3. As per Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, a driver has to hold an effective driving licence for the type of vehicle which he intends to drive. When the policy shows that it is a commercial vehicle, it is enough for the driver to hold a licence, to drive a light motor vehicle, along with an endorsement on such licence, to drive commercial vehicle also and then only he will become a person who is duly licenced. Otherwise, the driver will be called only as, "not duly licenced", as contemplated in Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act. 4. When there is deviation in the policy, as per the law laid down in the National Insurance Company Limited vs. Swaran Singh and others - 2004 (3) SCC 297 , the insurer will be entitled to succeed in its defence and avoid liability. In this connection, I would like to mention the provisions of law. Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which provides for necessity for driving, reads as under: "3. In this connection, I would like to mention the provisions of law. Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which provides for necessity for driving, reads as under: "3. Necessity for driving licence.--(1)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 motorcab or motor cycle 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. (2)The conditions subject to which sub-section (1) shall not apply to a person receiving instructions in driving a motor vehicle shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government." 5. (2)The conditions subject to which sub-section (1) shall not apply to a person receiving instructions in driving a motor vehicle shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government." 5. Section 149 of the Act provides the duty of insurers to satisfy judgments and awards against persons insured in respect of third party risks.-- "(1)xxx xxx xxx (2)No sum shall be payable by an insurer under sub-section (1) in respect of any judgment or awards unless, before the commencement of the proceedings in which the judgment or award is given the insurer had notice through the Court or, as the case may be, the Claims Tribunal of the brining of the proceedings, or in respect of such judgment or award so long as execution is stayed thereon pending an appeal; and an insurer to whom notice of the bringing of any such proceedings is so given shall be entitled to be made a party thereto and to defend the action on any of the following grounds, namely: (a)that there has been a breach of a specified condition of the policy, being one of the following conditions, namely: (i)a condition excluding the use of the vehicle-- (a)for hire or reward, where the vehicle is on the date of the contract of insurance a vehicle not covered by a permit to ply for hire or reward, or (b)for organised racing and speed testing, or (c)for a purpose not allowed by the permit under which the vehicle is used, where the vehicle is a transport vehicle, or (d)without side-car being attached where the vehicle is a motor cycle; or ii)a condition excluding driving by a named person or persons or by any person who is not duly licensed, or by any person who has been disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence during the period of disqualification; or 6. It is thus necessary for a driver of a commercial vehicle not only to possess a licence to drive a light motor vehicle but also to have an endorsement in the licence authorising him to drive a commercial vehicle. If it is not so, there would be breach of condition of the contract of insurance, in the event of which, the liability of the insurer could be avoided. This position of law is well fortified in the following lines in Swaran Singh Case cited supra. If it is not so, there would be breach of condition of the contract of insurance, in the event of which, the liability of the insurer could be avoided. This position of law is well fortified in the following lines in Swaran Singh Case cited supra. "The owner of a motor vehicle in terms of Section 5 of the Act has a responsibility to see that no vehicle is driven except by a person who does not satisfy the provisions of Section 3 or 4 of the Act. In a case, therefore, where the driver of the vehicle, admittedly, did not hold any licence and the same was allowed consciously to be driven by the owner of the vehicle by such person, the insurer is entitled to succeed in its defence and avoid liability. The matter, however, may be different where a disputed question of fact arises as to whether the driver had a valid licence or where the owner of the vehicle committed a breach of the terms of the contract of insurance as also the provisions of the Act by consciously allowing any person to drive a vehicle who did not have a valid driving licence. In a given case, the driver of the vehicle may not have any hand in it at all e.g. A case where an accident takes place owing to a mechanical fault or vis-major. ..." 7. The question as regards the liability of the owner vis-a-vis the driver, being not possessed of a valid licence, has already been settled in Swaran Singh Case cited Supra, which reads as follows: "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 the Central Government to prescribe forms of driving licences for various categories of vehicles mentioned in sub-section (2) of the said Section. The various types of vehicles described for which a driver may obtain a licence for one or more of them are: (a)motorcycle without gear, (b)motorcycle 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. 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", "maxi-cab", "medium goods vehicle", "medium passenger motor vehicle", "motor-cab", "motorcycle", "omnibus", "private service vehicle", "semi-trailer", "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 as a person possessing a driving licence for "motorcycle without gear", [sic may be driving a vehicle] for which he has no licence. Cases may also arise where a holder of driving licence for "light motor vehicle" is found to be driving a "maxi-cab", "motor-cab" or "omnibus" for which he has no licence. In each case, on evidence led before the 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 the accident was caused solely because of some other unforeseen or intervening causes like mechanical failures and similar other causes having no nexus with the 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." 8. In a later case in National Insurance Corporation Limited vs. Kanti Devi (Mrs) and others - 2005 (5) SCC 789, the Supreme Court has considered the observations made in Swaran Singh Case and approved the principles enunciated therein. 9. By applying the above principles to the case on hand, as per the policy Ex.B-2 the vehicle involved in the accident and insured with the appellant insurance company was a tourist taxi. To drive such a vehicle the driver should possess a valid licence. Ex.X-1 is the xerox copy of the licence issued by the Motor Vehicle Inspector. A perusal of such Ex.X-1 shows that the driver of the vehicle by name K.Murugan was holding a valid licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle at the time of accident and there was an endorsement to drive maxicab and he was also holding a badge. Ex.X-1 is the xerox copy of the licence issued by the Motor Vehicle Inspector. A perusal of such Ex.X-1 shows that the driver of the vehicle by name K.Murugan was holding a valid licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle at the time of accident and there was an endorsement to drive maxicab and he was also holding a badge. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the driver was not holding a valid licence to drive the vehicle in question. This issue has also been discussed by the Tribunal in detail by appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties. Therefore, I am of the view the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is without any basis and the same has been rightly rejected by the Tribunal. I see no reason whatsoever either to alter or modify the well considered award of the Tribunal which only requires a confirmation by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.