Judgment 1. This appeal by the Insurance Company is directed against the common judgment and award dated 25.06.2009 passed in MVC No. 45/2007 on the file of Civil Judge (Senior Division) and MACT at Tarikere. 2. The brief facts of the case is that on 03.12.2006, at about 2.39 p.m., the claimant herein along with his son, the claimant in MVC No. 46/2007 was going from Bukkambudhi to Kottur in the bike bearing Registration No.KA-05-EN-1747, as pillion rider and rider respectively. At that time, the driver of the luggage auto bearing Registration No.KA-18-9405 came from opposite side in a rash manner and dashed against the motor cycle, as a result of which, both the rider and the pillion rider fell to the road and suffered grievous injuries. In the circumstances, both in particular, the appellant herein preferred MVC No. 45/2007 seeking compensation on account of injuries sustained by him, disability to which he is exposed etc. 3. Respondent-Insurance Company in the statement of objections filed denied the cause of accident, nature of injuries sustained, age of the claimant and the income of the claimant/appellant and specifically pleaded that, the insured has not complied with submitting of the records required to be filed by him to the insurance company and the liability if any is limited to the terms and conditions of the policy. 4. To prove the case, the appellant herein along with claimant in other case, got himself examined as PW.1 and also got marked Exs.P1 to 21, on behalf of respondent, one witness was examined as RW.1 and Exs.R1 to 3 were marked. The Tribunal on appreciation of such evidence on record deemed it fit to award a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- to the claimant in MVC No. 45/2007 with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization holding that both the owner and the Insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay the same and further directed the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company to indemnify the owner. 5. 5. Aggrieved by the said award directing the respondent/Insurance Company to indemnify the owner, the appellant/Insurance Company has preferred this appeal interalia contending amongst other ground that, as per the records made available before the Tribunal, the driver of the vehicle in question namely the luggage auto bearing Registration No.KA-18-9405 did not posses valid driving licence to drive the same and as such, the Insurance company is not liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company further submitted that, admittedly the vehicle involved is a goods auto bearing registration No.KA-18-9405 and the driver ought to have possessed license required to drive the transport vehicle. 7. On perusal of the license produced by the Insurance Company marked as ex.R2, the same clearly discloses that, the driver was holding license to drive the light motor vehicle and not transport vehicle and the driving license is valid from 25.10.2004 to 24.10.2024. As on the date of accident, namely on 03.12.2006, he possessed only a license to drive a non-transport vehicle and as such, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner. Further, he submitted that, though the claimant is the third party to the said vehicle, as there is violation of the terms and conditions of policy, the company cannot be held liable to any extent irrespective of whether he is a third party or otherwise. 8. On perusal of the records, it is seen that, admittedly, the vehicle involved is a goods transport vehicle. Similarly, on perusal of Ex.R2, it is seen that, it is license issued to drive the light motor vehicle in particular and not the transport vehicle. It is further seen that, on perusal of the registration certificate of the vehicle, marked as Ex.R1, the description of the vehicle is mentioned as Light motor vehicle transport. Hence, though vehicle is light motor vehicle, specification to the effect that, it is a transport vehicle, whereas, as discussed herein license is unsued to drive a non-transport vehicle. 9. It is further seen that, on perusal of the registration certificate of the vehicle, marked as Ex.R1, the description of the vehicle is mentioned as Light motor vehicle transport. Hence, though vehicle is light motor vehicle, specification to the effect that, it is a transport vehicle, whereas, as discussed herein license is unsued to drive a non-transport vehicle. 9. With regard to the aspect of liability further it is seen that, when once Insurance company has discharged its burden of proving that the driver held license only to drive the non-transport vehicle, burden shifts upon the claimant to establish that the driver did possess license other than Ex.R2 to drive the transport vehicle, but, neither the claimant nor the owner of the vehicle produced any material to discharge their burden. In the circumstances, the contention of the Insurance Company that the driver was not having valid driving license to drive the transport vehicle will have to be accepted and in such event, the liability of the Insurance company to indemnify the owner does not arise at all. 10. Accordingly, the impugned Judgment and award is liable to be modified. With regard to the award in the connected case in MVC No. 46/2007, it is seen that, an amount of Rs.8,000/- is awarded towards compensation and in view of the mandate under Section 173(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, that, no appeal shall lie against any award of the claimant, if the amount is less than Rs.10,000/-, the appellant/Insurance Company herein has duly satisfied the said award for Rs.8,000/- without preferring any appeal, nevertheless, it cannot be said that satisfying the award in another case will bar the Insurance Company to putforth it case in similar cases, wherein the amount of compensation exceeds the said amount of Rs.10,000/-. Hence, the following: ORDER The above appeal is partly allowed by modifying the impugned judgment and award dated 25.06.2009 passed in MVC No. 45/2007 on the file of Civil Judge (Senior Division) and MACT, Tarikere by exonerating the Insurance Company from indemnifying the owner of the vehicle and the award so passed stand modified accordingly. The amount in deposit is ordered to be refunded to the appellant.