Hon'ble BHAGWATI, J.—Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award dated 16th November, 1999 rendered by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Jaipur, whereby, the learned Tribunal decreed an amount of Rs. 25,000/- in favour of claimant-respondent No.2 Parmanand and against the appellants-non-claimants Nos. 1 and 2. 2. The nub of the appellants' story is that- On 16th April, 1992 at about 5:10 pm, the claimant Parmanand was going on his Luna No. RJ-14-3128 from the direction of Krishi Bhawan towards Ambedkar Circle at Jaipur. When he reached a turning point, the appellant No.2 Hardev Singh came on his scooter No. RJ 14-3M-3641. He drove his scooter rashly and negligently at a fast speed and collided with his Luna resulting into grievous injuries on legs of claimant Parmanand. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the respondents and carefully perused the relevant material available on record. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has filed this appeal on the following grounds:- i) That it was the claimant Parmanand who drove his Luna negligently and collided with the scooter of the appellant Hardev Singh. Thus, the negligence of scooter driver is not proved. If at all, the negligence of the scooter driver is taken into consideration, then both the Luna driver and the scooter driver were negligent in their driving and taking into consideration the contributory negligence, 50% of the liability should be fastened upon the scooter driver and rest of the 50% liability of compensation should be attributed to Luna driver. ii) The second ground of appeal is that the appellant Hardev Singh was having a valid license to drive the scooter but in spite of there being a valid license, the learned Tribunal has exonerated the Insurance Co. from its liability. The finding of the learned Tribunal with regard to exonerating the liability of Insurance Company is not in accordance with the provisions of law and thus, the Insurance Company should be held liable and the appellant should be absolved of their responsibility to pay compensation. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants and contended that the appellant No.2 was not having valid license to drive the scooter at the relevant point of time. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants and contended that the appellant No.2 was not having valid license to drive the scooter at the relevant point of time. It is true that the scooter No. RJ 14 3 M 3641 was insured with the respondent No.1 and the scooter was insured by M/s. Kamal Motor Parts Company, Jaipur. As per the terms and conditions of Insurance policy, only that person was authorized to drive the scooter who had valid and effective driving license to drive the same. Since, the appellant No.2 had a driving license to drive the Light Motor Vehicle and he did not have any driving license to drive the two wheeler scooter, hence, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay compensation to third party as the terms and conditions of the insurance policy were violated by its owner. He has cited Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Zaharulnisha & Ors., 4 (2008) ACC 781 (SC) in support thereof. 6. Having considered the submissions made at the bar and carefully scanned the relevant material on record, it is noticed that at the relevant point of time, the appellant No. 2 was having a license to drive the Light Motor Vehicle. He did not possess a license to drive two wheeler scooter. There is ample evidence on record to prove that the driver of the scooter drove it rashly and negligently and collided with the Luna No. RJ 14 3 3128. It is not found to be a case of contributory negligence and the learned Tribunal has rightly observed that the driver of the scooter was negligent in his driving and he caused an accident to Luna driver as a result of which he sustained injuries on his legs. Thus, the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to contributory negligence is not found to be tenable. 7. In the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Thus, the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to contributory negligence is not found to be tenable. 7. In the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Zaharulnisha & ors (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that:- “In the light of the above settled proposition of law, the appellant Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants for the cause of death of Shukurullah in road accident which had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of scooter by Ram Surat who admittedly had no valid and effective licence to drive the vehicle on the day of accident. The scooterist was possessing driving licence of driving HMV and he was driving totally different class of vehicle which act of his is in violation of Section 10(2) of the MV Act.” 8. In the light of above pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Insurance Company respondent No. 1 cannot be held liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimant. Learned Tribunal has rightly absolved the Insurance Company of its responsibility. Undeniably, the appellant No. 2 was in possession of a license to drive the Light Motor Vehicle at the relevant time and he had no valid license to drive the two wheeler scooter on the day of accident. The judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal is perfectly just and proper and suffers from no legal or factual infirmity. I am in full agreement with the finding arrived at by the learned Tribunal and in my opinion, the impugned award does not warrant any intervention. 9. For the reasons stated above, the appeal fails and same being bereft of merits stands dismissed. No order as to costs.