ORDER Arun Mishra, J. 1. The appeal has been preferred by the insurer aggrieved by award dated 4-5-2007 passed by MACT, Mandla in Claim Case No. 1/2006. Vide impugned award, the Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 1,52,000/- on account of death of Ku. Ranu. 2. Insurer has come up in the appeal to assail it's liability to make the payment of compensation on the ground that driver was not holding the valid and effective driving licence as on the date on which accident took place. 3. Ms. Amrit Ruprah, learned Counsel appearing for insurer has submitted that driver was holding two kind of licences as on the date of accident, which permitted him to drive two wheelers without gear and four wheeler with gear. At the relevant time, he was driving the two wheeler with gear for which he was not holding the licence as such there was breach of policy. 4. The main question for consideration is whether there was breach or substantial breach on the part of the owner/driver so as to exonerate the insurer. Form and contents of licences to drive have been provided under Section 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Section 10 (2) Clause (a) provides for motor cycle without gear, Clause (b) provides for motor cycle with gear, Clause (c) provides for invalid carriage, Clause (d) provides for light motor vehicle, Clause (e) provides for transport vehicle, Clause (i) provides for road-roller and Clause (j) provides for motor vehicle of a specified description. Licences have been mentioned in ascending order of liability to drive the vehicle. In the instant case, driver was admittedly holding licence to drive the motor cycle without gear and light motor vehicle with gear, thus he was well acquainted how to use the gears. He was holding the licence of greater responsibility than the one which is required for driving the two wheeler with gear, thus, on the facts of the instant case as driver was holding two aforesaid licences as on the date of accident, in my opinion, he was having sufficient knowledge to use the gears, there was no breach much less substantial breach on the part of the owner/driver so as to exonerate the insurer. The view taken by the Tribunal is found to be just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The Apex Court in National Insurance Co. The view taken by the Tribunal is found to be just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and Ors. (2004) 3 SCC 297 , has laid down thus: 110. (iii) The breach of policy condition, e.g., disqualification of the driver or invalid driving licence of the driver, as contained in Sub-section (2) (a) (ii) of Section 149, has to be proved to have been committed by the insured for avoiding liability by the insurer. Mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties. To avoid its liability towards the insured, the insure has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by a duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time. 110. (vi) Even where the insurer is able to prove breach on part of the insured concerning the policy condition regarding holding of a valid licence by the driver or his qualification to drive during the relevant period, the insurer would not be allowed to avoid its liability towards the insured unless the said breach or breaches on the condition of driving licence is/are so fundamental as are found to have contributed to the cause of the accident. The Tribunals in interpreting the policy conditions would apply "the rule of main purpose" and the concept of "fundamental breach" to allow defences available to the insurer under Section 149 (2) of the Act. 6. Shri Paritosh Trivedi, learned Counsel appearing for respondents has placed reliance on a decision of Division Bench of this Court rendered in Ram Bhagat Goutam v. Jethanand Harwani and Ors. 2007(3) M.P.H.T. 193 , in which this Court has held thus: 7. There appears to be cleavage of opinion as to whether a person holding driving licence of Light Motor Vehicle can drive motorcycle with gear. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bharamappa Doddabirappa Pujari and Anr. 2007(3) M.P.H.T. 193 , in which this Court has held thus: 7. There appears to be cleavage of opinion as to whether a person holding driving licence of Light Motor Vehicle can drive motorcycle with gear. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bharamappa Doddabirappa Pujari and Anr. 2005 ACJ 1509 , 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 motorcycle without gear and not that he cannot drive it. 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. 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 motorcycle 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 and Ors. 2006 ACJ 2584, Rajasthan High Court opined that person having licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle cannot drive two wheeler. In K. Venkatanarayanan v. Balaji and Ors. 2002 ACJ 1063, similar view was taken by the Madras High Court. 8. In National Insurance. Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and Ors. (supra), 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 licenses arise for consideration before the Tribunal as a person possessing a driving licence for "motorcycle 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 "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. Apex Court held thus: 89. Apex Court held thus: 89. 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) 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. They are "goods carriage", "heavy goods vehicle", "heavy passenger motor vehicle", "invalid carriage", "light 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. 90. We have construed and determined the scope of Sub-clause (ii) of Sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the Act. 90. We have construed and determined the scope of Sub-clause (ii) of Sub-section (2) 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 emphasized that in the case of minor and inconsequential deviations in the user 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. Motor cyclist had the licence to drive 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 and Ors. (supra), 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. 7. Ms. Amrit Ruprah, learned Counsel appearing for the insurer has relied upon the decision of High Court of Himachal Pradesh in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Prem Lata and Ors. 2001 ACJ 1111, in which the driver was not holding the licence to drive two wheeler, he was having the licence to drive the four wheeler, thus it was held that driver was not having the experience to drive the two wheeler. Ltd. v. Prem Lata and Ors. 2001 ACJ 1111, in which the driver was not holding the licence to drive two wheeler, he was having the licence to drive the four wheeler, thus it was held that driver was not having the experience to drive the two wheeler. Facts are otherwise in the instant case. Admittedly the driver was holding the licence to drive the two wheeler without gear and light motor vehicle with gear. Reliance has also been placed by Ms. Ruprah on the decision of High Court of Madras in K. Venkatanarayanan v. Balaji and Ors. 2002 ACJ 1063, in which the licence which was issued did not contain any endorsement for driving two wheeler. In the instant case, facts arc otherwise, thus the aforesaid decision is distinguishable. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no substantial breach of the insurance policy. Appeal being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.