Judgment 1. Though this matter is listed for admission, with the consent of the Learned counsel for the respective parties, it is taken up for final disposal. 2. This appeal is by the claimant challenging the liability fastened on the first respondent-owner and absolving the liability as against the second respondent-insurer. 3. The brief facts of the case are: The appellant-claimant instituted claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation in respect of the personal injuries which he sustained in a motor accident that took place on 25.02.2004 at about 7.00 p.m., near Achina in Padangady village involving Autorickshaw bearing registration No.KA-21-6390, owned by the first respondent and insured with the second respondent at the relevant point of time. In the impugned accident he sustained serious injuries comprising of fractures for which he took treatment in the Hospital by spending huge money. Despite the same, he is not completely cured of the injuries due to which he is unable to carry on his avocation, which has resulted in loss of income to him. Accordingly, he sought for grant of compensation from the respondents. 4. After service of notice, the first respondent remained absent. Hence, he was placed exparte. The second respondent-insurer appeared and contested the claim of the petitioner. They contended that the accident has not taken place on account of the fault of the driver of three wheeler involved in the accident. They further contended that the vehicle involved in the accident was a transport vehicle, the driver of the same did not possess valid and effective license to drive the said vehicle at the time of accident, as such there is breach of terms and conditions of the policy. They also denied all other averments made by the claimant in his petition and sought for dismissal of the same on the ground that they are not liable to pay any compensation. 5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal initially framed the following four issues:- 1(a). Whether the petitioner proves that the alleged accident was taken place and it was solely due to rash and negligent driving of the auto bearing registration No.Ka-21-6390 by its driver-respondent No.1? 1(b). Whether there was any contributory negligence of the petitioner in causing the alleged accident? If so, to what extent? 2. Whether the petitioner further proves that due to the impact of the alleged accident, he sustained alleged injuries? 3. 1(b). Whether there was any contributory negligence of the petitioner in causing the alleged accident? If so, to what extent? 2. Whether the petitioner further proves that due to the impact of the alleged accident, he sustained alleged injuries? 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation from the respondents? If so, for how much? 4. What order? 6. The claimant in support of his case got himself examined as PW1 and one more witness as PW2. He produced 170 documents, which came to be marked as Exhibit P1 to P170. The contesting respondents initially did not lead any evidence. On the other hand, they produced three documents, which came to be marked as Exhibit R1 to R3. 7. The Tribunal on considering the oral and documentary evidence on record held that the accident in question took place solely on account of the fault of the driver of the offending autorickshaw, accordingly, the claimant has established actionable negligence. Further, the Tribunal looking to the evidence of the claimant and the documents produced both by the claimant and respondents’ awarded compensation of Rs.75,000/- with interest at 7% per annum from the date of petition till realization. Further it saddled the liability of payment of compensation on the second respondent-insurer by its judgment and award dated 22.08.2006. 8. The second respondent-insurer being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 22.08.2006 fastening the liability on them preferred MFA.No.11799/2006 before this Court. This Court allowed the said appeal and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal with a direction to afford sufficient opportunity to all the parties in the claim petition in respect of the claim made and the stand taken by them and to dispose off the case on merits. 9. After the matter came to be remitted back to the Tribunal, the Tribunal took the case on its file and in view of the observations made by this Court in MFA.11799/2006 on hearing the counsel for the respective parties framed the following additional issue:- “Which of the respondent is responsible to pay the compensation.” Thereafter, the Tribunal afforded reasonable opportunity to all the parties to the claim petition to lead their respective evidence and to produce the documents in support of their case. In response to the same the second respondent-insurer adduced further evidence of DW1 and fresh evidence of DW2-Official of the RTO Puttur and further got produced two more documents in support of their case which came to be marked as Exhibit R4 and R5. In so far as the claimant is concerned they did not lead any further evidence but relied upon the earlier evidence and documents. The first respondent-owner did not appear before the Tribunal even after the matter came to be remitted back to the Court. As already pointed out, he was placed exparte initially as he had remained absent. 10. The Tribunal on considering the evidence of the claimant and that of the respondent-insurer and relying on the documents exhibit R4 and R5 held that the driver of the offending autorickshaw did not possess valid and effective driving license to drive the same at the time of accident. Therefore, the owner of the offending Autorickshaw namely, the first respondent has committed breach of terms and conditions of the policy and accordingly, in view of the same, the insurer is not liable to indemnify the first respondent-owner and by absolving the liability of the insurer fastened the liability on the first respondent-owner to pay compensation to the claimant. 11. The appellant-claimant being aggrieved of fastening the liability on the first respondent-owner and absolving the liability of the second respondent-insurer is in appeal before this Court. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-claimant submitted that initially the Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the first respondent-owner’s risk has been covered by the policy issued by the second respondent-insurer. After remand the insurer have not placed any clinching material to show that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess any valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle in question. In fact, the driver of the offending vehicle did possess license to drive the three wheeler as on the date of accident. Since the vehicle involved in the accident is a three wheeler as the driver did possess valid license to drive the same, the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal absolving the liability of the insurer and fastening the same on the owner cannot be sustained and it be set aside. 13. Since the vehicle involved in the accident is a three wheeler as the driver did possess valid license to drive the same, the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal absolving the liability of the insurer and fastening the same on the owner cannot be sustained and it be set aside. 13. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent-insurer submitted that the impugned judgment and order of the Tribunal is justified in view of the evidence of DW2-RTO and additional documents Exhibit R4 and R5 produced which reveal that the driver of the offending autorickshaw as on the date of accident did not possess valid and effective driving license to drive the transport vehicle which is involved in the accident. The endorsement that has been issued in favour of the driver of the offending vehicle authorizing him to drive three wheeler transport vehicle is subsequent to the date of accident that is with effect from 10.02.2005 as against the date of accident which has taken place on 25.02.2004. Therefore, he submitted that since the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid and effective driving license to drive the offending three wheeler transport vehicle as on the date of accident, the Tribunal was justified in up holding the contentions of the insurer that the first respondent has committed breach of terms and conditions of the policy as such they are not liable to indemnify the insurer. Hence, the impugned order absolving the liability of the insurer does not call for any interference and the appeal be dismissed. The learned counsel in support of his submission relied upon the decisions rendered by the Apex Court reported in 2006 ACJ 1336 in case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Kusum Rai and others and AIR 2009 SC 2151 in case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Angad Kol and others. 14. Taking the rival submissions in to consideration and the papers that are now made available before me at the time of hearing, the point that arises for my consideration is: “Whether the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal fastening the liability on the owner and absolving the liability of the second respondent-insurer calls for interference or is sustainable.” 15. Facts are not in dispute. Facts are not in dispute. The claimant having met with accident, injuries sustained, treatment taken and the amount spent for the same and three wheeler transport vehicle involved in the accident is not in dispute. It is the contention of the appellant-claimant that the driver of the offending vehicle did possess valid and effective license to drive the three wheeler vehicle as on the date of accident. Therefore, the impugned order of the Tribunal absolving the liability of the insurer cannot be sustained. On the other hand, the material now on record, after the matter came to be remitted back to the Tribunal reveals that the driver of the offending vehicle did possess valid driving license to drive the three wheeler, but that does not reveal that he did possess the license to drive the three wheeler which is a transport vehicle. The evidence of DW2 and the additional documents R4 and R5 reveal as on the date of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid license to drive the three wheeler transport vehicle involved in the accident. On the other hand, the documents produced reveal that the driver of the offending vehicle has been granted license to drive three wheeler transport vehicle with effect from 10.02.2005. The accident in question has taken place undisputedly on 25.02.2004. That clinchingly establishes that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid and effective driving license to drive the offending vehicle as on the date of accident. 16. The Motor Vehicle Act 1988 contemplates that a person driving a Motor vehicle in a public place is required to possess a valid and effective driving license authorizing him to drive the vehicle. Section 3 of the Motor vehicles Act 1988 which deals with possessing a valid and effective driving licence reads as follows: 3. “Necessity for driving license: (1) No person shall drive motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving license issued to him authorizing him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle (other than (a motor cab or motor cycle) hired for his own use or rented any scheme made under sub-section (2) of section 75) unless his driving license 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.” A reading of the above section clearly indicates that a person driving any type of vehicle should possess valid license to drive the particular vehicle with proper endorsement in his driving license permitting him to drive the type of vehicle whether it is transport vehicle or otherwise. Section 10 (E) incorporates transport vehicles. 1) The Apex Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Kusum Rai and others reported in 2006 ACJ 1336 has held in para 8 as follows: “Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, section 149(2) (a) (ii) – Motor insurance-Driving license-Liability of insurance company-Driver had license to drive light motor vehicle but he was driving a jeep which was being plied as a taxi, a commercial vehicle-Whether there was breach of conditions of contract of insurance by the insured and the insurance company is exempted from liability-Held: “yes; driver did not possess a valid license to drive a commercial vehicle; insurance company may recover the amount paid from the owner by initiating proceedings before the executing court. [2004 ACJ 1 (SC) and 2004 ACJ 721 (SC) relied]. “149. Duty of insurers to satisfy judgments and awards against persons insured in respect of third party risks. [2004 ACJ 1 (SC) and 2004 ACJ 721 (SC) relied]. “149. Duty of insurers to satisfy judgments and awards against persons insured in respect of third party risks. (2) No sum shall be payable by an insurer under sub-section (1) in respect of any judgment or award 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 bringing 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 organized 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 license during the period of disqualification; or iii) a condition excluding liability for injury caused or contributed to by conditions of war, civil war, riot or civil commotion; or b) that the policy is void on the ground that it was obtained by the non-disclosure of a material fact or by a representation of fact which was false in some material particular.” 9) It has not been disputed before us that the vehicle was being used as a taxi. It was, therefore, a commercial vehicle. The driver of the said vehicle, thus, was required to hold an appropriate license therefore. It was, therefore, a commercial vehicle. The driver of the said vehicle, thus, was required to hold an appropriate license therefore. Ram Lal who allegedly was driving the said vehicle at the relevant point of time, as noticed herein before, was holder of a license to drive a light motor vehicle only. He did not possess any license to drive a commercial vehicle. Evidently, therefore, there was a breach of condition of the contract of insurance. The appellant, therefore, could raise the said defence. 10) We have noticed herein before that the Tribunal has gone into the said question. It proceeded on the basis that the case was covered by Kamla, 2001 ACJ 843 (SC). The correctness of the said decision came up for consideration before this court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs Swaran Singh, 2004 ACJ 1 (SC), wherein this court clearly held: “The owner of a motor vehicle in terms of section 5 of the Act has a responsibility to see that no vehicle is driven 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 at all, e.g., a case where an accident takes place owning to a mechanical fault or vis major. [See Jitendra Kumar, 2003 ACJ 1441 (SC)]. 12) This court in Swaran Singh, 2004 ACJ 1 (SC), clearly laid down that the liability of the insurance company vis-à-vis the owner would depend upon several factors. The owner would be liable for payment of compensation in a case where the driver was not having a licence at all. [See Jitendra Kumar, 2003 ACJ 1441 (SC)]. 12) This court in Swaran Singh, 2004 ACJ 1 (SC), clearly laid down that the liability of the insurance company vis-à-vis the owner would depend upon several factors. The owner would be liable for payment of compensation in a case where the driver was not having a licence at all. It was the obligation on the part of the owner to take adequate care to see that the driver had an appropriate licence to drive the vehicle. The question as regards the liability of the owner vis-à-vis the driver being not possessed of a valid licence was considered in Swaran Singh (supra) stating: “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 licenses 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’, ‘maxi-cab’, ‘medium goods vehicle’, ‘medium passenger motor vehicle’, ‘motor cab’, ‘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 licenses 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 ‘maxi-cab’, ‘motor cab’ or ‘omnibus’ for which he has no licence. 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 ‘maxi-cab’, ‘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. 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.” 14) In a case of this nature, therefore, the owner of a vehicle cannot contend that he has no liability to verify the fact as to whether the driver of the vehicle possessed a valid licence or not 2) Nextly the Apex Court in case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Angad Kol and others reported in AIR 2009 SC 2151 has held as follows:- A) Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988), Ss. 2(10), 2(14), 2(21), 10, 14 – Driving Licence – There is distinction between “light motor vehicle” and “transport vehicle” – A transport vehicle may be light transport vehicle – But for purpose of driving same, a distinct licence is required to be obtained. (paras 9, 10) B) Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988), Ss. 147, 2(14), 3 – Liability of insurer – Deceased died in mini auto accident – Driver of offending vehicle had licence to drive light motor vehicle and not transport vehicle – Breach of conditions of insurance apparent on face of record – Finding of fact arrived at that vehicle in question was not proved to be a goods vehicle is not correct as driving licence had been granted for period of 20 years and not for period of 3 years – Insurer therefore directed to deposit compensation amount with liberty to recover same from owner and driver of vehicle. C) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter called as ‘the Act’) was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to motor vehicles. ‘Driving licence’ has been defined in Section 2(10) to mean the licence issued by a competent authority under Chapter II authorizing the person specified therein to drive, otherwise than as a learner, a motor vehicle or a motor vehicle of any specified class or description. ‘Goods carriage’ has been defined in Section 2(14) to mean any motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use solely for the carriage of goods, or any motor vehicle not so constructed or adapted when used for the carriage of goods. The said Act also defines ‘heavy goods vehicle’, ‘heavy passenger motor vehicle’, ‘medium goods vehicle’ and ‘medium passenger motor vehicle’ as well as a ‘light motor vehicle’ in Section 2(21) of the Act to means: “light motor vehicle’ means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road-roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed 7500 kilograms.” D) Although the definition of the ‘light motor vehicle’ brings within its umbrage both ‘transport vehicle’ or ‘omnibus’, indisputably, as would be noticed infra, a distinction between an effective licence granted for transport vehicle and passenger motor vehicle exists. Section 3 provides for necessity of driving licence, stating: “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 authorizing him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle other than a motor car 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) ….” Section 9 provides for grant of driving licence. Section 10 prescribes the form and contents of licences to drive which is to the following effect. “10. Form and contents of licences to drive – (1) Every learner’s licence and driving licence, except a driving licence issued under section 18, shall be in such forms and shall contain such information as may be prescribed by the Central Government. Section 10 prescribes the form and contents of licences to drive which is to the following effect. “10. Form and contents of licences to drive – (1) Every learner’s licence and driving licence, except a driving licence issued under section 18, shall be in such forms and shall contain such information as may be prescribed by the Central Government. (2) A learner’s licence or, as the case may be, driving licence shall also be expressed as entitling the holder to drive a motor vehicle of one or more of the following classes, namely:- (a) to (c)…. (d) light motor vehicle; (e) transport vehicle; (i) road Roller; (j) motor vehicle of a specified description.” E) The distinction between a ‘light motor vehicle’ and a ‘transport vehicle’ is, therefore, evident. A transport vehicle may be a light motor vehicle but for the purpose of driving the same, a distinct licence is required to be obtained. The distinction between a ‘transport vehicle’ and a ‘passenger vehicle’ can also be noticed from Section 14 of the Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 14 provides for duration of a period of three years in case of an effective licence to drive a ‘transport vehicle’ whereas in case of any other licence, it may remain effective for a period of 20 years. 3) A perusal of the principles laid down in the above decisions clearly indicate that a person driving any type of vehicle should possess valid licence to drive the particular vehicle with proper endorsement in his driving licence permitting him to drive the type of vehicle, whether it transport vehicle or otherwise. In this case, admittedly, the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid driving license to drive the transport vehicle as on the date of accident. In view of this, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the first respondent-owner has committed breach of terms and conditions of the policy and therefore the second respondent-insurer is not liable to indemnify the first respondent-owner. Accordingly, the Tribunal has absolved the liability of the insurer from payment of compensation and saddled the same on the first respondent-owner. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal fastening the liability on the first respondent-owner and absolving the liability of the insurer from payment of compensation calling for interference in this appeal. 16. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal fastening the liability on the first respondent-owner and absolving the liability of the insurer from payment of compensation calling for interference in this appeal. 16. In the result for the forgoing reasons, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER Appeal is dismissed.