Judgment Arun Mishra, J. ( 1. ) The appeal has been preferred by the claimant for enhancement of compensation calling in question the award dated 30.11.2004 passed by Eighth Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gwalior in Claim Case No. 30 of 2004. ( 2. ) The claimant Shakuntala sustained fracture of pelvic bone. She is aged 55 years. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 18,475 along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. The insurer has been exonerated as the driver was holding licence to drive light motor vehicle whereas he was driving motor cycle for which he was not holding licence. ( 3. ) Having heard learned counsel for the parties, in my opinion, the Tribunal has not awarded adequate compensation as well as illegally exonerated the insurer from making payment of compensation determined by the Tribunal, the liability ought to have been joint and several. ( 4. ) First coming to question of quantum of compensation awarded. Fracture of pelvic bone was caused. No evidence has been adduced that permanent disability has been incurred. However, considering the nature of injury sustained it would be appropriate to award compensation of Rs. 50,000 for physical pain and suffering, expenditure incurred on conveyance and attendant and on special diet and for loss of earnings during the period of obtaining treatment. Claimant is housewife. She was contributing the household works of which family members deprived of. Thus, compensation of Rs. 18,475 is enhanced to Rs. 50,000. ( 5. ) Coming to question of liability of the insurer: as the driver was holding licence to drive a light motor vehicle, he was driving motor cycle the vehicle of light responsibility. In section 10, the vehicles have been mentioned in ascending order of responsibility. A Division Bench of this court in Ram Bhagat Goutam v. Jethanand Harwani, 2007 (3) MPHT 193 , where the court has considered the question thus: "(7) There appears to be cleavage of opinion as to whether a person holding driving licence of light motor vehicle can drive a motor cycle with gear. In United India Insurance Co. A Division Bench of this court in Ram Bhagat Goutam v. Jethanand Harwani, 2007 (3) MPHT 193 , where the court has considered the question thus: "(7) There appears to be cleavage of opinion as to whether a person holding driving licence of light motor vehicle can drive a motor cycle with gear. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bharamappa Doddabirappa Pujari, 2005 ACJ 1509 (Karnataka), High Court of Karnataka has considered section 10 and has held that in section 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act, vehicles from the category (a) to (j) have been mentioned in order of their laden weight of the vehicle. Thus, a person holding licence to drive a light motor vehicle cannot be permitted to drive medium goods vehicle of higher category, but he can drive an invalid carriage or motor cycle with or without gear. Karnataka High Court has relied upon decision of Madras High Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. R. Jayalakshmi, 2002 ACJ 252 (Madras). The question has been considered by Karnataka High Court thus: (20) Now, we can look at section 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It shows types of vehicles in respect of which licence to ride or drive has to be obtained. They are: (a) motor cycle without gear; (b) motor cycle with gear; (c) invalid carriage; (d) light motor vehicle; (e) medium goods vehicle; (f) medium passenger motor vehicle; (g) heavy goods vehicle; (h) heavy passenger motor vehicle; (i) road-roller; (j) motor vehicle of a specified description. Thus, it starts with a light vehicle and goes up in the order of laden weight. In other words, after listing the light ones, heavy vehicles have been listed. The listing clearly shows that the one lower down in the order requires something extra, something more than what the driver is to be equipped with for the previous one. So, in my view, a person who has a licence to drive motor cycle with gear cannot be permitted to drive an invalid carriage that is to say, a person having a licence to drive a motor cycle with gear can very well drive a motor cycle without gear and not that he cannot drive it. To construe otherwise will not be proper. To construe otherwise will not be proper. Similarly, a person holding licence to drive a light motor vehicle cannot be permitted to drive a medium goods vehicle, but he can drive an invalid carriage or motor cycle with or without gear. Same view has been expressed by the High Court of Madras in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. R. Jayalakshmi, 2002 ACJ 252 (Madras). This being so, the respondent No. 1, who had driving licence to drive a light motor vehicle could drive motor cycle with gear. In this view of the matter also, I do not find any force in the case of insurance company. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Parami Devi, 2006 ACJ 2584 (Rajasthan), Rajasthan High Court opined that person having licence to drive light motor vehicle cannot drive two-wheeler. In K. Venkatanarayanan v. Balaji, 2002 ACJ 1063 (Madras), similar view was taken by Madras High Court. (8) In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, 2004 ACJ 1 (SC), the Apex Court has laid down that 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. Various types of vehicles have been enumerated in section 10. In claims for compensation for accidents, various kinds of breaches with regard to the conditions of driving licence arise for consideration before the Tribunal as a person possessing a driving licence for motor cycle without gear, 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 maxicab, motorcab 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. 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. Apex Court held thus: (82) 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 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 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, motorcab, motor cycle, 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. A person possessing a driving licence for motor cycle without gear (sic may be driving a vehicle), 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, motorcab 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. 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. (83) 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 of 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 Apex Court has emphasised that in the case of minor and inconsequential deviations in the use of vehicle with regard to licensing condition would not constitute sufficient ground to deny the benefit of coverage of insurance to the third parties. In the instant case, insurer has not adduced any evidence to show that the fact of driver possessing licence under one type of vehicle but found driving other type of vehicle was contributory cause of accident. Motorcyclist had the licence to drive a light motor vehicle which requires more responsibility while driving light motor vehicle is more hazardous as per its unladen weight as compared to the vehicle in question. In the absence of evidence having been adduced by insurer as laid down by Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, 2004 ACJ 1 (SC), we are of the opinion that it could not be said to be a substantial breach on part of owner. Vehicle was owned by Kailash Poptani, there was reason for him to believe that Jethanand was competent to drive as he was holder of licence to drive even light motor vehicle. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, 2004 ACJ 1 (SC), we are of the opinion that it could not be said to be a substantial breach on part of owner. Vehicle was owned by Kailash Poptani, there was reason for him to believe that Jethanand was competent to drive as he was holder of licence to drive even light motor vehicle. Thus, it could not be said to be a substantial breach on part of owner in the instant case. Thus, we hold that liability to make payment of compensation to be saddled jointly and severally upon driver, owner and insurer." ( 6. ) It would not constitute breach of policy much less substantial one. Consequently, the insurer is held liable jointly and severally along with driver and owner to make the payment of compensation. ( 7. ) The appeal is allowed in part to the aforesaid extent. No costs. Appeal partly allowed.