JUDGMENT This appeal is by the insurer, questioning the liability as ordered in M.V.C.No.3628/2007 dated 3.4.2008 on the file of M.A.C.T., Bangalore. 2. Respondent No.2 herein had filed claim petition seeking compensation for the injury suffered in the road accident that occurred on 3.5.2007 alleging that the motor cycle bearing No.KA-04/EQ-7279 ridden by rider came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him. 3. The said claim petition was contested by the insurer interalia denying its liability on the ground that the rider of the motor cycle was none other than the son of insured (owner) and further he did not possess the driving licence to ride the motor cycle, as such, the insurer is not liable to indemnify the liability of the owner, as it is violative of the terms and conditions of the policy. 4. The Tribunal though found that the rider of the motor cycle was not having licence to ride the motor cycle, but held that, the rider was having a licence to drive light motor vehicle. As such, the insurer is liable to indemnify the liability of the owner. It is against this finding, the insurer is before this Court. 5. Sri. A.K. Bhat, learned Counsel for the appellant – insurer submitted that, the insurer is entitled to take a statutory defence that the rider of the motor cycle had no valid licence and in case the insurer proves that the rider had no licence to ride motor cycle, the owner, who has taken the risk of allowing the rider to ride the motor cycle, is liable to pay the compensation and not the insurer. In this case, the mother of the rider being the insured and aware of the fact that the rider had no licence, but allowed the rider to ride the motor cycle, which caused the accident. He relied on Ex.R1 and submitted that, Ex.R1 is the licence to drive four-wheeler light motor vehicle and Ex.R2 is the learner’s licence for motor cycle, which had already expired as on the date of accident. There was neither learner’s licence nor regular licence to ride the motor cycle. 6. He relied on Ex.R1 and submitted that, Ex.R1 is the licence to drive four-wheeler light motor vehicle and Ex.R2 is the learner’s licence for motor cycle, which had already expired as on the date of accident. There was neither learner’s licence nor regular licence to ride the motor cycle. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the rider of the motor cycle had a licence Exs.R2 and R3 which was valid from 25.10.2002 to 24.4.2003 and he had also learner’s licence of motor cycle, as such, even if it is a invalid licence, liability to pay the compensation is on the insurer. The tribunal has rightly held that the insurer is liable to pay the compensation. 7. It is not in dispute that the motor cycle bearing No.KA-04/EQ-7279 caused the accident. It is also not in dispute that the son of insured respondent No.1 was the rider. It is also not in dispute that he did not possess licence to ride the motor cycle. He had licence to drive light motor vehicle (non-transport). Admittedly, the light motor vehicle is a four-wheeler and motor cycle is two-wheeler, though both are two different motor vehicles, licence to ride motor cycle does not authorize to drive four wheelers. The Tribunal has found that the rider of the motor cycle did not had the licence to ride motor cycle, but it relies on the licence to drive light motor vehicle, which is four-wheeler. In my opinion, that finding is unjust and improper, as the licence to drive four-wheeler cannot held as a licence to ride two-wheelers. In these circumstances, the finding of the Tribunal that the insurer is liable to pay the compensation is required to set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The finding of the Tribunal fixing liability on the insurer is set aside. The owner of the vehicle is made liable to pay compensation. The amount in deposit be refunded to the appellant.