Judgment S.K. Gangele, J. ( 1. ) Appellant, Insurance Company, had field this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the award datead 18th December, 2007 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhind, in Claims Case No. 26/2007. ( 2. ) On 20th June, 2006 deceased Rafiq had been coming to Mehgaon on his bicycle. When he reached near house of Kalyan Kushwah at Gormi road, he was dashed by a Bolero Camper vehicle bearing registration No. UP-83-H-9365. In the aforesaid accident he died on the spot. A report of the accident was lodged at the police station Mehgaon. Police registered a case against the driver of the offending vehicle. ( 3. ) Thereafter, claimants filed claim application before the Claims Tribunal, claiming a total compensation of Rs. 12,02,5000/-. The Claims Tribunal, after appreciation of evidence on record held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the driver. The driver had a valid driving licence. The offending vehicle was insured at the relevant time by the Insurance Company appellant. The Claims Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 2,98,000/- and further directed that the owner, driver and Insurance Company are jointly and severally liable for payment of compensation. ( 4. ) Learned counsel for appellant, Insurance Company has submitted that the Claims Tribunal has committed an error of law in directing the Insurance Company to indemnify the insured. The offending vehicle was being driven in contravention of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the driver had no valid driving licence to drive the vehicle. In support of his contentions learned counsel relied upon the following judgments:- (1) National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kusum Rai and others 2006 (3) ALT 81 (SC) = 2006 (3) SCJ 657 = (2006) 4 SCC 250 = 2006 (3)TAC1; (2) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Prabhu Lal, 2008 (2) SCJ 470 = 2008 (1) An.W.R. 346 (SC) = (2008) 1 SCC 696 ; (3) Lal Chand v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 2006 (7) SCJ 581 = 2006 (6) ALT 13 (SC) = 2006 ACJ 2161; and (4) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Angad Kol and others 2009 (3) SCJ 484 = 2009 (1) An.W.R. 683 (SC) = (2009) 2 TAC 4. ( 5. Ltd. 2006 (7) SCJ 581 = 2006 (6) ALT 13 (SC) = 2006 ACJ 2161; and (4) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Angad Kol and others 2009 (3) SCJ 484 = 2009 (1) An.W.R. 683 (SC) = (2009) 2 TAC 4. ( 5. ) Contrary to this, learned counsel for respondent No.6 has submitted that there was no violation of any terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, hence the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly fixed the liability of the Insurance Company. In support of his contentions learned counsel relied upon the following judgments:- (1) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Budhiya Baiand others 2007 (II) M.P.LJ. 226 ; and (2) National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and others (2004) 3 SCC 297 = 2004 (1) TAC 321 = 2004 (2) ALT 13.2 (DNSC) ( 6. ) The point for determination before this Court is that whether the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the insured. It is an admitted fact that the offending vehicle was insured at the relevant time by the appellant, Insurance Company. Copy of the Insurance Policy, Ext.D-1, has been filed before the Claims Tribunal. As per the aforesaid Insurance Policy the aforesaid vehicle, Bolero Camper, was insured for carrying goods and passengers. Mr. B.N. Shukla (NAW-1) examined before the Claims Tribunal on behalf of Insurance Company, who deposed that he was working as Assistant Manager of the Insurance Company. The vehicle, UP-83-H- 9365 was insured as a commercial vehicle by the Insurance Company under the commercial vehicle package policy. It was valid from 1st February, 2006 to 31st January, 2007. As per the Insurance Policy it was the term and condition that the driver must have a valid driving licence for driving the vehicle. The driver, Rajeev Kumar Yadav had no valid driving licence, hence the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the insured. In his evidence he admitted the fact that the vehicle was registered as light motor vehicle. Mr. Jaiveer Singh (NAW-2), who was working at the relevant time, as Senior Clerk in the office of Assistant Divisional Transport Officer, Etawa, in his deposition stated that Ext. D-2, driving licence, was issued from the office of Assistant Divisional Transport Officer, Etawa on 27th May, 2005. The aforesaid driving licence was issued for driving motorcycle, LMV private vehicle. The driver was not authorized under the aforesaid driving licence to drive commercial vehicle. D-2, driving licence, was issued from the office of Assistant Divisional Transport Officer, Etawa on 27th May, 2005. The aforesaid driving licence was issued for driving motorcycle, LMV private vehicle. The driver was not authorized under the aforesaid driving licence to drive commercial vehicle. No body has been examined on behalf of owner and driver of the offending vehicle. ( 7. ) A certificate of registration of the vehicle along with an application under Order XLI, Rule 22, C.P.C. has been filed by the owner of the vehicle. As per the a foresaid Registration Certificate the vehicle was registered as "Utility Van", However, from the evidence of Mr. B.N. Shukla, Manager of the Insurance Company, it is clear that the vehicle insured by the Insurance Company was under commercial vehicle package policy and the vehicle was registered for commercial purpose. It is also a fact that the vehicle was being used by respondent No.6 at the time of accident for commercial purpose. Admittedly, in the driving licence issued by Assistant Divisional Transport Officer, Etawa, there is no endorsement that the driver was authorized to drive commercial vehicle, a light motor vehicle. ( 8. ) Honble the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir and another, reported in 2008 (4) SCJ 855 = 2008 (2)An.W.R. 249 (SC) =2008 (3) TAC 20 (SC) has held that if a driver has a driving licence to drive light motor vehicle (transport) and there was no endorsement to drive commercial vehicle and the driver had been driving light motor vehicle (commercial) then there was a breach of policy, However, Honble the Supreme Court further directed under Article 142 of the Constitution to the Insurance Company to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants and it could recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. ( 9. ) In the present case also the driver of the offending vehicle had a valid driving licence to drive a light motor vehicle, however, there was no endorsement on the driving licence to drive a commercial vehicle and at the relevant time the driver had a valid driving licence of driving a light motor vehicle but not a commercial vehicle. ( 10. ) A Three Judges Bench of the Honble the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. ( 10. ) A Three Judges Bench of the Honble the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and others, reported in (supra), has held as under with regard to liability of the Insurance Company when the driver has been granted licence for driving one type of vehicle, but at the relevant time he was driving another type of vehicle:- "81. Section 10 of the Act, provides for forms and contents of licences to drive. The licence has to be granted in the prescribed form. This, a licence to drive a light motor vehicle would entitle the holder to drive the vehicle falling within that class description. 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 Central Government to prescribe the forms of driving licences for various categories of vehicles mentioned in subsection (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, 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. A person possessing a driving licence for motorcycle 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 imaxicab, 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. 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 diver 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." ( 11. ) Hence, on the basis of the above principle of law laid down by Honble Supreme Court, in my opinion there is a breach of Insurance Policy. Hence, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the amount of compensation from owner of the offending vehicle, respondent No.6, after payment of the amount of compensation to claimants. ( 12. ) Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant, Insurance Company, is partly allowed. It is held that the Insurance Company, appellant, shall pay the amount of compensation as awarded by the Claims Tribunal to the claimants and it can recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle, respondent No.6. The impugned award is modified to the extent indicated hereinabove. No order as to cost.