JUDGMENT : B.S. Patil, J. These appeals are filed by the Insurance Company challenging the common Order dated 24.04.2009 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Chitradurga. 2. By the order under challenge, Commissioner has awarded different amount of compensation along with interest at 12% p.a. in favour of claimants in all the three cases, out of which these appeals arise, by recording a finding that the accident occurred on account of foe negligence of the driver of the tractor and trailer bearing registration No. KA16-A-386/KA16-M-592 on 16.09.2006. The Commissioner has also found that injured claimant Nos. 1 to 3 in the claim petitions filed before him were all engaged as coolies in the tractor trailer owned by respondent No. 2 K.D. Venugopal, son of K.S. Venkataramaiah. 3. The Commissioner has further found that accident arose out of and during the course of their employment as coolies in the tractor while the tractor was used for transporting material from Venkatcshwara Crusher. 4. The principal contention urged before this Court by the appellant-Insurance Company in all these appeals is that driver of the tractor trailer possessed licence to drive light motor vehicle and there was no endorsement from the Regional Transport Office that he was entitled to drive transport vehicle, hence there was no effective licence held by the driver in terms of the provisions contained under Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act and therefore, appellant - Insurance Company was not liable to make good the compensation awarded by the Commissioner. In support of this contention, Learned Counsel for the appellant - Insurance Company has placed reliance on Ex.R5 - driving licence held by the driver of the tractor trailer and on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Angad Kol And Others, AIR 2009 SC 2151 and also on the judgment of this Court in the case of Mohammed @ Mohd. Haneef v. Mallayya @ Mallappa & Another, ILR 2015 KAR 2064. 5. It is not in dispute and indeed it is evident from Ex.R5 - driving licence possessed by the driver of the tractor trailer that he was issued with driving licence for light motor vehicle. Duration and validity of the driving licence is for 20 years with effect from 01.02.2005 till 31.01.2025. There is no endorsement made in the driving licence that he was authorised to drive transport vehicle. Duration and validity of the driving licence is for 20 years with effect from 01.02.2005 till 31.01.2025. There is no endorsement made in the driving licence that he was authorised to drive transport vehicle. Indeed, if the licence was for transport vehicle, it would not have been issued for a period of 20 years. Judgment in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Angad Kol And Others (supra) which has been followed by this Court in the case of Mohammed @ Mohd. Haneef v. Mallayya @ Mallappa & Another (supra) lays down that if a person having licence to drive light motor vehicle drives a transport vehicle, unless his driving licence specifically entitles him to do so, he cannot be said to possess effective driving licence and therefore, liability to pay compensation cannot be fastened on the Insurance Company. In fact, this Court in the case of Mohammed @ Mohd-Haneef v. Mallayya @ Mallappa & Another (supra) has held in paragraphs 20 & 21 as under: “20. A Division Bench of this Court in a decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Yalgurdappa And Another, has taken into consideration the amendment of Central Motor Vehicles Rules, classification of the vehicle as transport and non-transport and it is held that the driver who had a licence to drive the non-transport vehicle has no competency to drive the transport vehicle. In MFA. No. 30903/2009 dated 2nd August 2014, the aforesaid questions were taken into consideration and it was held that a person has no competency to drive transport vehicle having held a licence for non-transport vehicle. The reference is also made in the judgment of this Court in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., v. N.M. Rajaprakash." 21. So from the aforesaid discussion of the provisions of Section 2(21) of the Act and the amendment to the Central Motor Vehicles Rules which came into effect from 28.03.2001, it is necessary for a person who drive a light motor vehicle for (commercial) transport must have a specific licence in this regard. As could be seen from the provisions of Section 3 of the Act, it is provided no person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorising him to drive the vehicle. As could be seen from the provisions of Section 3 of the Act, it is provided no person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorising him to drive the vehicle. Therefore, if a person has authority to drive the commercial transport vehicle, he must have a licence as contemplated under the Rules amended, which came into effect from 28.03.2001. If he does not have such a licence, there would be contravention of the Act. He does not have competency to drive such vehicle and thereby there would be breach of conditions of the policy, for which the insurer has to be exempted from the liability. It is only the Apex Court, which has got authority to direct the insurer by exercising powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and such powers are not available to this Court or any other Courts.” 6. In the instant case, accident has taken place on 16.09.2006 i.e., to say after the amendment was brought about to Section 2(21) of the Act and to the Central Motor Vehicles Rules that came into force with effect from 28.03.2001. 7. In the light of the above, the inescapable conclusion that follows is that the driver of the tractor trailer in the instant case was not duly authorised to drive the transport vehicle. Therefore, he did not possess an effective driving licence. Consequently, the Insurance Company will not be liable to make good the compensation and it is owner of the vehicle who have to pay compensation. 8. In the light of the above legal position, these appeals are allowed in part. Liability fastened on the Insurance Company is vacated making it clear that the amount awarded by the Commissioner shall be recovered from the owner of the vehicle. The amount in deposit shall be refunded to the appellant - Insurance Company. Miscellaneous First Appeals are Allowed in Part.