Judgment These appeals are heard and decided by this common judgment having regard to common questions, albeit with some variation, that arise for consideration. The questions are : a. Whether a driver possessing a licence to drive a light motor vehicle (non-transport), having caused an accident while driving a light goods vehicle (or a medium, or a heavy goods vehicle, or a passenger carrying commercial vehicle) would yet attract the liability of the Insurer to meet a claim for compensation by a victim or his representatives ? b. Whether a driver possessing a licence to drive a transport vehicle, but which had expired on the date of accident, but had been subsequently renewed, would attract the insurer’s liability ? c. Whether the above questions are any longer res integra ? 2. After having heard the learned counsel Shriyuths Kayakamath and Ravindra R Mane, appearing for the respective appellants and Shriyuths Dinesh M Kulakarni, V. Shivaraj Hiremath, S.M. Kalwad, Ganapati M Bhat, Laxman T Mantagani, M.M. Hiremath, Shri. Rajashekhar R Gunjalli, and Hanumanthareddy Sahukar, appearing for the respective respondents, it is convenient to take stock of the legal provisions and the case law in the first instance and to address the last of the above points for consideration, in answering the first two. 3. A “driving licence” is defined under Section 2(10) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘MV Act’, for brevity) as meaning a licence issued by the competent authority prescribed, authorizing a person to drive a motor vehicle of a specified class or description. 4. Section 3 of the MV Act prohibits a person from driving a “transport vehicle”, unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do. 5. A “goods carriage” is defined as any motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use solely for the carriage of goods, or a vehicle not so constructed or adapted when used for the carriage of goods. 6. A “light motor vehicle” is defined under Section 2(21) to mean a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 kilograms; or a motorcar, or tractor or a road roller, the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7500 kilograms. 7. A “transport vehicle” is defined under Section 2(47) of the MV Act, to mean a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle. 7. A “transport vehicle” is defined under Section 2(47) of the MV Act, to mean a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle. 8. In terms of Sub-section (4) of Section 41 of the MV Act, that in addition to the particulars to be included in the Certificate of Registration of a vehicle, it shall also specify the type of the motor vehicle, having regard to the design, construction and use of the motor vehicle as notified by the Central Government in the Official Gazette. As per S.O. 1248(E) dated 5.11.2004, published in the Gazette of India, Extra-ordinary, Part II, Sec.3(ii) dated 5.11.2004, the Central Government has specified the types of motor vehicles as mentioned in columns 1 and 2 of the Table below for the purposes of Section 41(4) of the MV Act. TABLE Transport Vehicle Non-Transport Vehicle (i) Motor Cycle with side car for carrying goods. (ii) Motor cycle with trailer to carry goods. (iii) Motor cycle used for hire to carry one passenger on pillion and motorized cycle-rickshaw for goods or passengers on hire. (iv) Luxury Cab. (v) Three wheeled vehicles for transport of passengers/goods. (vi) Goods carrier trucks or tankers or mail carriers (N1-N3 category). (vii) Power tiller and Tractors using public roads. (viii) Mobile clinic or X-Ray van or library vans. (ix) Mobile Workshops. (x) Mobile canteens. (xi) Private Service Vehicle. (xii) Public Service Vehicle such as maxi cab, motor cab, stage carriage and contract carriage including tourist vehicles. (xiii) Educational Institution buses. (xiv) Ambulances. (xv) Animal Ambulances. (xvi) Camper vans or trailers. (xvii) Cash vans. (xviii) Fire tenders, snorked ladders, auxiliary trailers and fire fighting vehicles. (xix) Articulated vehicles. (xx) Hearses. (xxi) Omnibus+ (i) Motor cycle with or without side car for personal use. (ii) Mopeds and motorized cycles (Engine capacity exceeding 25 cc). (iii) Invalid carriage. (iv) Three-wheeled vehicles for personal use. (v) Motor car. (vi) Fork lift. (vii) Vehicles or trailers fitted with equipments like rig, generator, compressor. (viii) Crane mounted vehicle. (ix) Agriculture Tractor and Power Tiller. (x) Private service vehicle, registered in the name of an individual and if declared to be used by him solely for personal. (xi) Camper Van or Trailer for private use. (xii) Tow Trucks, Breakdown Van and Recovery Vehicles. (xiii) Tower Wagons and tree trimming vehicles owned by Central, State and local authorities. (ix) Agriculture Tractor and Power Tiller. (x) Private service vehicle, registered in the name of an individual and if declared to be used by him solely for personal. (xi) Camper Van or Trailer for private use. (xii) Tow Trucks, Breakdown Van and Recovery Vehicles. (xiii) Tower Wagons and tree trimming vehicles owned by Central, State and local authorities. (xiv) Construction Equipment Vehicles as defined in rule 2(ca).* 9. It is also significant to notice that under Section 14 of the MV Act, the currency of licences to drive motor vehicles varies : a. A “learner’s licence” is effective for a period of 6 months. b. A licence to drive a “transport vehicle” is issued or renewed, for a period of 3 years. (It could be 1 year if the vehicle is used to carry goods of a dangerous or hazardous nature) c. Any other licence, other than the above, would be effective for a period of twenty years in respect of a person aged below 50, until he attains the age of 50. d. If a person is aged 50 on the date the licence is issued or renewed, it would be effective for a period of 5 years. Every driving licence issued under b, c and d, above, would notwithstanding its expiry, continue to be effective for a period of 30 days. 10. One other development that is relevant is the amendment of Sub-section (2) of Section 10 by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994 in the said section, the following kinds of vehicles were specified: “…………… (e) medium goods vehicle, (f) medium passenger motor vehicle, (g) heavy goods vehicle and (h) heavy passenger motor vehicle” -By the above amendment the above clauses, (e) to (h), were substituted by a single clause (e) thus: “(e) transport vehicle” Incidentally, Sub-section (2) of Section 10 specifies “light motor vehicle” under clause (d), thereof. This clause has remained in place before and after the amendment. 11. Rule 16 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘CMV Rules’, for brevity) prescribes the Form, in which a driving licence is issued. It provides that the holder of a licence can drive any vehicle of the description mentioned therein. This clause has remained in place before and after the amendment. 11. Rule 16 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘CMV Rules’, for brevity) prescribes the Form, in which a driving licence is issued. It provides that the holder of a licence can drive any vehicle of the description mentioned therein. It is significant that a “transport vehicle”, as a particular class of vehicle, is included in Form 4, under the CMV Rules, which has been substituted by GSR 221 E dated 28.3.2001, with effect from 28.3.2001. 12. We may take a overview of the several decided cases involving the controversy of the vehicle involved in an accident being driven by a driver holding a licence to drive a “light motor vehicle” and the insurer seeking to claim that the insurer’s liability was not attracted as the vehicle in question was a “transport vehicle”, and that the driver did not hold an “effective driving licence”. a. Ashok Gangadhar Maratha v. Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., (1999) 6 SCC 620 The appellant was the owner of a truck weighing less than the maximum limit prescribed in Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The said truck was, therefore, a light motor vehicle. It was registered with the respondent insurer for a certain amount and for a certain period. Within the period of insurance, the truck met with an accident and got completely damaged. The appellant’s claim against the respondent was rejected by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The National Commission accepted the respondent’s contention that the truck was a goods carriage or a transport carriage and that the driver of the truck who was holding a driving licence in Form 6 to drive light motor vehicles only was not authorised to drive a transport vehicle. That, therefore, the insured having committed breach of the terms of insurance policy and the provisions of the Act, the respondent insurer was not liable to indemnify the insured. Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court held that the definition of “light motor vehicle” as given in clause (21) of Section 2 of the Act can apply only to a “light goods vehicle” or a “light transport vehicle”. A “light motor vehicle” otherwise has to be covered by the definition of “motor vehicle” or “vehicle” as given in clause (28) of Section 2 of the Act. A “light motor vehicle” otherwise has to be covered by the definition of “motor vehicle” or “vehicle” as given in clause (28) of Section 2 of the Act. A light motor vehicle cannot always mean a light goods carriage. Light motor vehicle can be a non-transport vehicle as well. It was reiterated that since a vehicle cannot be used as a transport vehicle on a public road unless there is a permit issued by the Regional Transport Authority for that purpose and since in the instant case there was no pleading to that effect by any party nor was there any permit on record, it was held that the vehicle in question would remain a light motor vehicle. b. National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 , a three judge bench, has while considering the contention of the insurer that no liability is covered if the driver is found driving of a vehicle without a licence or a fake licence, with reference to sub-section (4) of Section 149 of the MV Act, it was held thus : “(The) Proviso appended to sub-section (4) of Section 149 is referable only to sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the Act. It is an independent provision and must be read in the context of Section 96(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Furthermore, it is one thing to say that the insurer will be entitled to avoid its liability owing to breach of terms of a contract of insurance but it is another thing to say that the vehicle is not insured at all. If the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted, the same would render the proviso to sub-section (4) as well as subsection (5) of Section 149 of the Act otiose, nor can any effective meaning be attributed to the liability clause of the insurance company contained in subsection (1) of Section 149. Xxx Sub-section (5) of Section 149 which imposes a liability on the insurer must also be given its full effect. The insurance company may not be liable to satisfy the decree and, therefore, its liability may be zero but it does not mean that it did not have initial liability at all. Thus, if the insurance company is made liable to pay any amount, it can recover the entire amount paid to the third party on behalf of the assured. The insurance company may not be liable to satisfy the decree and, therefore, its liability may be zero but it does not mean that it did not have initial liability at all. Thus, if the insurance company is made liable to pay any amount, it can recover the entire amount paid to the third party on behalf of the assured. If this interpretation is not given to the beneficent provisions of the Act having regard to its purport and object, we fail to see a situation where beneficent provisions can be given effect to. Sub-section (7) of Section 149 of the Act, to which pointed attention of the Court has been drawn by the learned counsel for the petitioner, which is in negative language may now be noticed. The said provision must be read with sub-section (1) thereof. Xxx When, admittedly no licence was obtained by a driver: We have analysed the relevant provisions of the said Act in terms whereof a motor vehicle must be driven by a person having a driving licence. The owner of a motor vehicle in terms of Section 5 of the Act has a responsibility to see that no vehicle is driven except 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 owing to a mechanical fault or vis-major. [See Jitendra Kumar (supra)]. 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 owing to a mechanical fault or vis-major. [See Jitendra Kumar (supra)]. In V. Mepherson vs. Shiv Charan Singh [1998 ACJ 601 (Del.)] the owner of the vehicle was held not to be guilty of violating the condition of policy by willfully permitting his son to drive the car who had no driving licence at the time of accident. In that case, it was held that the owner and insurer both were jointly and severally liable. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Jagtar Singh and Others [1998 ACJ 1074], Hon'ble M. Srinivasan, CJ, as His Lordship then was, dealing with the case where a duly licensed driver was driving a vehicle but there was a dispute as to who was driving the vehicle. In that case the court referred to the judgment in Kashiram Yadav vs. Oriental Fire & General Insurance Co. Ltd., [1989 ACJ 1078 (SC)] and expressed its agreement with the views taken therein. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Ishroo Devi and Others [1999 ACJ 615] where there was no evidence that the society which employed the driver was having knowledge that the driver was not holding a valid licence, it was held the insurance company is liable. The court relied upon the decisions of this Court in Kashiram Yadav's case (supra), Skandia's case (supra) and Sohan Lal Passi's case (supra). When the person has been granted licence for one type of vehicle but at the relevant time he was driving another type of vehicle Section 10 of the Act provides for forms and contents of licences to drive. The licence has to be granted in the prescribed form. Thus, a licence to drive a light motor vehicle would entitle the holder there to drive the vehicle falling within that class or description. 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 forms of driving licences for various categories of vehicles mentioned in sub-section (2) of said section. 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 forms of driving licences 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) Motorcycle without gear, (b) motorcycle 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 subsection (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', `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', [sic may be driving a vehicle] for which he has no licence. Cases may also arise where a holder of driving licence for `light motor vehicle' is found to be driving a 'maxi-cab', 'motorcab' or `omnibus' for which he has no licence. In each case on evidence led before the 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. We have construed and determined the scope of sub-clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 149 of the Act. We have construed and determined the scope of sub-clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 149 of the Act. Minor breaches of licence conditions, such as want of medical fitness certificate, requirement about age of the driver and the like not found to have been the direct cause of the accident, would be treated as minor breaches of inconsequential deviation in the matter of use of vehicles. Such minor and inconsequential deviations with regard to licensing conditions would not constitute sufficient ground to deny the benefit of coverage of insurance to the third parties. On all pleas of breach of licensing conditions taken by the insurer, it would be open to the tribunal to adjudicate the claim and decide inter se liability of insurer and insured; although where such adjudication is likely to entail undue delay in decision of the claim of the victim, the tribunal in its discretion may relegate the insurer to seek its remedy of reimbursement from the insured in the civil court. Where the driver’s licence is found to be fake: It may be true as has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that a fake or forged licence is as good as no licence but the question herein, as noticed hereinbefore, is whether the insurer must prove that the owner was guilty of the wilful breach of the conditions of the insurance policy or the contract of insurance. In Lehru's case (supra), the matter has been considered at some details. We are in general agreement with the approach of the Bench but we intend to point out that the observations made therein must be understood to have been made in the light of the requirements of law in terms whereof the insurer is to establish wilful breach on the part of the insured and not for the purpose of its disentitlement from raising any defence or the owners be absolved from any liability whatsoever. We would be dealing in some details with this aspect of the matter a little later. Learner’s Licence: Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for grant of learner's licence. [See Section 4(3), Section 7(2), Section 10(3) and Section 14]. A learner's licence is, thus, also a licence within the meaning of the provisions of the said Act. We would be dealing in some details with this aspect of the matter a little later. Learner’s Licence: Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for grant of learner's licence. [See Section 4(3), Section 7(2), Section 10(3) and Section 14]. A learner's licence is, thus, also a licence within the meaning of the provisions of the said Act. It cannot, therefore, be said that a vehicle when being driven by a learner subject to the conditions mentioned in the licence, he would not be a person who is not duly licensed resulting in conferring a right on the insurer to avoid the claim of the third party. It cannot be said that a person holding a learner's licence is not entitled to drive the vehicle. Even if there exists a condition in the contract of insurance that the vehicle cannot be driven by a person holding a learner's licence, the same would run counter to the provisions of Section 149(2) of the said Act.” c. New India Assurance v. Prabhulal, (2008) 1 SCC 696 While dealing with a case of a driver holding a licence to drive a light motor vehicle and was found driving a heavy goods vehicle, the apex court has held thus : “28. The Central Government has framed rules known as the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). 29. Rule 16 of the Rules prescribes the form in which driving licence is issued. The form provides that the holder of a licence can drive any vehicle of the description mentioned therein. Where authorization is granted to drive transport vehicle, it is expressly so provided by making an endorsement to that effect. 30. Now, it is the case of the Insurance Company that the vehicle of the complainant which met with an accident was a 'transport vehicle'. It was submitted that the insured vehicle was a 'goods carriage' and was thus a 'transport vehicle'. The vehicle was driven by Ram Narain, who was authorized to drive Light Motor Vehicle and not a transport vehicle. Since the driver had no licence to drive transport vehicle in absence of necessary endorsement in his licence to that effect, he could not have driven Tata 709 and when that vehicle met with an accident, Insurance Company could not be made liable to pay compensation. Xxx 40. Since the driver had no licence to drive transport vehicle in absence of necessary endorsement in his licence to that effect, he could not have driven Tata 709 and when that vehicle met with an accident, Insurance Company could not be made liable to pay compensation. Xxx 40. It is no doubt true that in Ashok Gangadhar, in spite of the fact that the driver was holding valid driving licence to ply Light Motor Vehicle (LMV), this Court upheld the claim and ordered the Insurance Company to pay compensation. But, in our considered opinion, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is right in submitting that it was because of the fact that there was neither pleading nor proof as regards the permit issued by the Transport Authority. In absence of pleading and proof, this Court held that, it could not be said that the driver had no valid licence to ply the vehicle which met with an accident and he could not be deprived of the compensation. This is clear if one reads paragraph 11 of the judgment, which reads thus: "11. To reiterate, since a vehicle cannot be used as transport vehicle on a public road unless there is a permit issued by the Regional Transport Authority for that purpose, and since in the instant case there is neither a pleading to that effect by any party nor is there any permit on record, the vehicle in question would remain a light motor vehicle. The respondent also does not say that any permit was granted to the appellant for plying the vehicle as a transport vehicle under Section 66 of the Act. Moreover, on the date of accident, the vehicle was not carrying any goods, and though it could be said to have been designed to be used as a transport vehicle or goods-carrier, it cannot be so held on account of the statutory prohibition contained in Section 66 of the Act". (emphasis supplied) 41. In our judgment, Ashok Gangadhar did not lay down that the driver holding licence to drive a Light Motor Vehicle need not have an endorsement to drive transport vehicle and yet he can drive such vehicle. (emphasis supplied) 41. In our judgment, Ashok Gangadhar did not lay down that the driver holding licence to drive a Light Motor Vehicle need not have an endorsement to drive transport vehicle and yet he can drive such vehicle. It was on the peculiar facts of the case, as the Insurance Company neither pleaded nor proved that the vehicle was transport vehicle by placing on record the permit issued by the Transport Authority that the Insurance Company was held liable. 42. In the present case, all the facts were before the District Forum. It considered the assertion of the complainant and defence of the Insurance Company in the light of the relevant documentary evidence and held that it was established that the vehicle which met with an accident was a 'transport vehicle'. Ram Narain was having a licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle only and there was no endorsement as required by Section 3 of the Act read with Rule 16 of the Rules and Form No.6. In view of necessary documents on record, the Insurance Company was right in submitting that Ashok Gangadhar does not apply to the case on hand and the Insurance Company was not liable. 43. The matter can be looked from another angle also. Section 14 referred to above, provides for currency of licence to drive motor vehicles. Sub-section (2) thereof expressly enacts that: “14(2) A driving licence issued or renewed under the Act shall,- (a) in the case of a licence to drive a transport vehicle, be effective for a period of three years": It also states that: “14. (2)(b) in the case of any other licence,- (i) if the person obtaining the licence, either originally or on renewal thereof, had not attained the age of fifty years on the date of issue or, as the case may be, renewal thereof,- (A) be effective for a period of twenty years from the date of such issue or renewal;" It is thus clear that if a licence is issued or renewed in respect of a transport vehicle, it can be done only for a period of three years. But, in case of any other vehicle, such issuance or renewal can be for twenty years provided the person in whose favour licence issued or renewed had not attained the age of 50 years. But, in case of any other vehicle, such issuance or renewal can be for twenty years provided the person in whose favour licence issued or renewed had not attained the age of 50 years. In the present case, the licence was renewed on November 17, 1995 upto November 16, 2015 i.e. for a period of twenty years. From this fact also, it is clear that the licence was in respect of 'a motor vehicle other than the transport vehicle.” 44. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company also referred to a decision of this Court in National Insurance Company vs. Kusum Rai & Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 250 , wherein this Court held that if the vehicle is a taxi which is being driven by a driver holding licence for driving Light Motor Vehicle only without there being any endorsement for driving transport vehicle, the Insurance Company cannot be ordered to pay compensation.” d. Ram Babu Tiwari v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2008) 8 SCC 165 Where the driver had failed to renew his licence as on the date of accident and had not filed any application within 30 days after expiry of the licence seeking such renewal but had obtained renewal much later, it was held that there was a breach of a policy condition and that the Insurance company was not liable to indemnify the Insured. e. National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Annappa Irappa Nesaria, (2008) 3 SCC 464 , A vehicle involved in the accident had a “goods carriage” permit. It had met with an accident on 9.12.1999. The driver held a licence to drive a light motor vehicle. The question whether he held a valid and effective driving licence to drive the said vehicle was answered in the affirmative on the following reasoning. “11. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to motor vehicles, is a complete code. 12. Section 2 of the Act provides for interpretation of the terms contained herein. It employs the words “unless the context otherwise requires”. Section 2(16) of the Act defines “heavy goods vehicle” to mean “any goods carriage the gross vehicle weight of which, or a tractor or a road-roller the unladen weight of either of which, exceeds 12,000 kilograms.” 13. 12. Section 2 of the Act provides for interpretation of the terms contained herein. It employs the words “unless the context otherwise requires”. Section 2(16) of the Act defines “heavy goods vehicle” to mean “any goods carriage the gross vehicle weight of which, or a tractor or a road-roller the unladen weight of either of which, exceeds 12,000 kilograms.” 13. Section 2(21) defines “light motor vehicle” and Section 2(23) defines “medium goods vehicle” as under: “2.(21) ‘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; *** (23) ‘Medium goods vehicle’ means any goods carriage other than a light motor vehicle or a heavy goods vehicle.” 14. Section 3 of the Act is in the following terms: “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 authorising him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle other than a motorcab 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.” 15. The Central Government has framed Rules known as The Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. 16. The word “Form” has been defined in Rule 2(e) to mean a Form appended to the rules. “Form 4 I apply for a licence to enable me to drive vehicles of the following description: (d) Light motor vehicle (e) Medium goods vehicle (g) Heavy goods vehicle (j) Motor vehicles of the following description” After amendment the relevant portion of Form 4 reads as under: “Form 4 I apply for a licence to enable me to drive vehicles of the following description: (d) Light motor vehicle (e) Transport vehicle (j) Motor vehicles of the following description.” 17. Rule 14 prescribes for filing of an application in Form 4, for a licence to drive a motor vehicle, categorizing the same in nine types of vehicles. 18. Clause (e) provides for “Transport vehicle” which has been substituted by G.S.R. 221(E) with effect from 28.3.2001. Before the amendment in 2001, the entries “medium good vehicle” and “heavy goods vehicle” existed which have been substituted by “transport vehicle”. 18. Clause (e) provides for “Transport vehicle” which has been substituted by G.S.R. 221(E) with effect from 28.3.2001. Before the amendment in 2001, the entries “medium good vehicle” and “heavy goods vehicle” existed which have been substituted by “transport vehicle”. As noticed hereinbefore, “Light Motor Vehicles” also found place therein. 19. “Light Motor Vehicle” is defined in Section 2(21) and, therefore, in view of the provision, as then existed, it included a light transport vehicle. Form 6 provides for the manner in which the licence is to be granted, the relevant portion whereof read as under: “Authorisation to drive transport vehicle Number................... Date........ Authorised to drive transport vehicle with effect from....... Badge number ......... Signature Designation of the licensing Authority Name and designation of the authority who conducted the driving test.” 20. From what has been noticed hereinbefore, it is evident that “transport vehicle” has now been substituted for 'medium goods vehicle' and 'heavy goods vehicle'. The light motor vehicle continued, at the relevant point of time, to cover both, “light passenger carriage vehicle” and “light goods carriage vehicle”. A driver who had a valid licence to drive a light motor vehicle, therefore, was authorised to drive a light goods vehicle as well. 21. The amendments carried out in the Rules having a prospective operation, the licence held by the driver of the vehicle in question cannot be said to be invalid in law. 22. For the reasons aforementioned there is no merit in this appeal and it is dismissed with costs which we quantify at Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only).” f. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd v. Angad Kol and others ( 2009 ACJ 1411 ) The driver of a goods transport vehicle holding a licence to drive a light motor vehicle was not said to be holding a valid and effective driving licence with reference to the period for which a licence to drive a transport vehicle is granted, the apex court has held thus : “13. The Central Government had framed Rules known as `Central Motor Vehicle Rules'. Form 4 prescribed therein provides for different columns for grant of a licence of light motor vehicle, medium goods vehicle or heavy goods vehicle. Rule 14 prescribes for filing of an application in Form 4 for a licence to drive a motor vehicle. The Central Government had framed Rules known as `Central Motor Vehicle Rules'. Form 4 prescribed therein provides for different columns for grant of a licence of light motor vehicle, medium goods vehicle or heavy goods vehicle. Rule 14 prescribes for filing of an application in Form 4 for a licence to drive a motor vehicle. An amendment was carried out on or about 28.3.2001 being JSR No.221(E) in terms whereof, inter alia, licence which is to be granted in Form 6 requires a specific authorization to drive a 'transport vehicle'. 14. The licence was granted to Respondent No.6, Umesh, in 2003, i.e., after the said amendment came into force. The accident, as noticed hereinbefore, took place on 31.10.2004. 15. Licence having been granted for a period of 20 years, a presumption, therefore, arises that it was meant for the purpose of a vehicle other than a transport vehicle. 16. Had the driving licence had been granted for transport vehicle, the tenure thereof could not have exceeded to three years.” In National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Annappa Irappa Nesaria [ (2008) 3 SCC 464 ], this Court noticed the aforementioned development in the matter of grant of licence to a transport vehicle stating that the same became effective from 28.3.2001 in the following terms : "16. From what has been noticed hereinbefore, it is evident that "transport vehicle" has now been substituted for "medium goods vehicle" and "heavy goods vehicle". The light motor vehicle continued, at the relevant point of time to cover both "light passenger carriage vehicle" and "light goods carriage vehicle". A driver who had a valid licence to drive a light motor vehicle, therefore, was authorised to drive a light goods vehicle as well. 17. The amendments carried out in the Rules having a prospective operation, the licence held by the driver of the vehicle in question cannot be said to be invalid in law." g. National Insurance Company v. Vidhyadar Mahariwala & others, (2008) 12 SCC 701 This matter related to the contention of the appellant that on the date of accident, i.e., 11.6.2004, the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle was not valid and therefore had no liability. The appellant’s claim for exoneration was on the ground of violation of policy condition. The driver’s licence was initially valid for the period from 15.12.1997 to 14.12.2000 and thereafter from 29.12.2000 to 14.12.2003. The appellant’s claim for exoneration was on the ground of violation of policy condition. The driver’s licence was initially valid for the period from 15.12.1997 to 14.12.2000 and thereafter from 29.12.2000 to 14.12.2003. Thereafter, it was again renewed from 16.5.2005 to 15.5.2008. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal held that though on the date of accident the driving licence was not valid, since the driver’s licence was renewed on 16.5.2005 for a further period of three years it cannot be said that during the intervening period the driver was incompetent or disqualified to drive the truck. In appeal before the High Court it was held by a Single Judge that the insurer was liable to indemnify the award. It was held by the apex court that the view taken in Ishwar Chandra v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2007)10 SCC 650 , was applicable and that the insurance company would have no liability in a case of the said nature and the appeal by the insurance company was allowed. h. H.S. Iyyappan v. United India Insurance Company Limited, (2013) 7 SCC 62 , This case involved a cyclist who was injured by the insured vehicle, a commercial light motor vehicle, having dashed against him and which was driven by a driver possessing a licence to drive a light motor vehicle but without an endorsement to drive a transport vehicle. The apex court held that the Insurance company was liable to pay the compensation, with a right to recover the same from the insured. It was held that the claimant was a third-party and would have the benefit of the decisions in Swaran Singh’s case, Kusum Rai’s case and others and that the date of the accident was 23.5.1998 and hence the decision in Nesaria would also apply. i. Kulwant Singh v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. [Civil Appeal Nos. 9927-28 of 2014 arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos.1499-1500 of 2014] [Civil Appeal Nos. 9929-30 of 2014 arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 29128-29129 of 2014 (Cc Nos.4232-4233 of 2014)]decided on 28.10.2014 The facts of the case and the point for consideration are stated thus in the judgment. i. Kulwant Singh v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. [Civil Appeal Nos. 9927-28 of 2014 arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos.1499-1500 of 2014] [Civil Appeal Nos. 9929-30 of 2014 arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 29128-29129 of 2014 (Cc Nos.4232-4233 of 2014)]decided on 28.10.2014 The facts of the case and the point for consideration are stated thus in the judgment. “The question raised for consideration was whether the Insurance Company is entitled to recovery rights on the ground of breach of conditions of insurance policy when the driver possessed a valid driving licence for driving a light vehicle, but fails to obtain endorsement for driving a goods vehicle. The claim petition was filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by the dependents of the deceased Rizwan S/o Kadir @ Abdul Kadir, who died in a road accident on 8th October, 2005 at about 05.30 a.m., while driving Tempo No.HR-G-5234, which was hit by a Tempo (Tata-407) bearing No.DL-1L-D3186. The Tribunal held that the death was on account of negligence of the driver of the offending Tempo (Tata-407) bearing No.DL-1L-D3186 and the claimants were entitled to compensation. The vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company and the driver was having a valid driving licence. The offending vehicle was a 'light goods vehicle'. The Insurance Company preferred an appeal before the High Court with the plea that it was entitled to recovery rights as the driving licence (Exhibit R3W1) was for driving a 'light motor vehicle'. It could not be equated with a 'light goods vehicle'. The High Court observed: "Driving licence of the driver was for driving a light motor vehicle. In no manner can it be said that a light motor vehicle can be equated with a light goods vehicle. In this scenario, it is clear that there was a breach of the policy condition and driver of the vehicle did not have a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. Recovery rights should have been granted by the Tribunal against the owner. The award is modified. Recovery rights are granted in favour of the Insurance Company." Aggrieved by the Judgment of the High Court, the appellants-the owners of the vehicle in question had come up before this Court.” In its brief reasoning, the apex court has relied upon Iyyapan’s case and Nesaria’s case, which is perplexing. The award is modified. Recovery rights are granted in favour of the Insurance Company." Aggrieved by the Judgment of the High Court, the appellants-the owners of the vehicle in question had come up before this Court.” In its brief reasoning, the apex court has relied upon Iyyapan’s case and Nesaria’s case, which is perplexing. For the reason that in so far as Iyyapan’s case is concerned, it was specifically held thus, therein : “It is the statutory right of a third party to recover the amount of compensation so awarded from the insurer. It is for the Insurer to proceed against the insured for recovery of the amount in the event there has been violation of any condition of the insurance policy” This aspect has been apparently overlooked by the apex court in the above decision. Further, the decision in Nesaria would have no application as the court was dealing with an accident of the year 2005, while in Nesaria, the accident was of a period prior to the amendment of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, made with effect from 28.3.2001. The said decision may, therefore, require a review by the apex court. 13. On an over all consideration of the above, it is evident that the first two questions framed for consideration in this judgment are no longer res integra. In that, in both instances there is a breach of condition of the contract of insurance and the Insurance company may not be liable to satisfy the decree. But it does not mean that it did not have the initial liability at all. Section 149 of the MV Act makes it mandatory on the part of the insurer to satisfy judgments and awards against persons insured in respect of third-party risk. The provision has been inserted in order to protect the persons travelling in vehicles or using the road from the risk attendant upon the user of the motor vehicles on the road. Hence it is made obligatory that no motor vehicle shall be used unless a third-party insurance is in force. Hence, the insurer cannot disown its liability on the ground that the driver was not holding a valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident. It is the statutory right of a third-party, to recover the amount of compensation so awarded from the insurer. Hence, the insurer cannot disown its liability on the ground that the driver was not holding a valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident. It is the statutory right of a third-party, to recover the amount of compensation so awarded from the insurer. It is for the insurer to proceed against the insured for recovery of the amount in the event there has been a violation of any condition of the insurance policy. (See: Skandia Insurance Company Limited vs. Kokilaben Chandravadan, (1987)2 SCC 654 ; Sohanlal Passio vs. P. Sesh Reddy and others, (1996) 5 SCC 21 ; New India Assurance Company, Shimla vs. Kamla, (2001)4 SCC 342 ; National Insurance Company Limited vs. Swaran Singh, (2004)3 SCC 297 ; National Insurance Company Limited vs. Kusum Rai, (2006) 4 SCC 250 ; Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanjappan and others, (2004)13 SCC 224 ; S. Iyyappan vs. United Indian Insurance Company Limited, (2013) 7 SCC 62 ;) However, the liability of the Insurer would not be attracted, in the above manner – when the claim is by any person claiming under the Insured, such as the driver of an offending vehicle. 14. In the light of the above, the facts, as are relevant for the consideration of the controversy involved, in each of these appeals, are briefly narrated hereunder. MFA 21080/2009 This appeal is filed by the insurance company questioning the liability fastened on it, in a claim for compensation before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation. The claimant was said to be the driver of a medium goods vehicle bearing Registration no. KA 29/3996. The same is said to have collided into a truck as on 21.12.2007. The claimant having suffered a fracture of the tibia and fibula, and having been assessed with a permanent disability of 23-28 % to the particular limb, was claiming compensation. The commissioner has awarded compensation in a sum of Rs.1,85,951/- and has fastened the liability on the insurer. The driving licence held by the claimant, who was the driver of the offending vehicle, was in respect of a Light motor vehicle, (non-transport) and was issued for a period of twenty years. The commissioner has awarded compensation in a sum of Rs.1,85,951/- and has fastened the liability on the insurer. The driving licence held by the claimant, who was the driver of the offending vehicle, was in respect of a Light motor vehicle, (non-transport) and was issued for a period of twenty years. Hence a substantial question of law as to whether the driving licence possessed by the driver-claimant of the offending vehicle, as on the date of the accident, could be said to be a valid and effective driving licence, would arise for consideration. In the light of the settled legal position, the answer is in the negative. Having regard to a clear breach of the policy condition as the driver of the insured offending vehicle not possessing a valid and effective licence, the liability of the insurer is not attracted. The appeal in MFA 21080/2009 is allowed. The liability fastened on the insurance company is set aside. The amount in deposit be refunded to the appellant-insurer. MFA 22392/2009 This appeal is by the insurance company questioning the liability fastened on it. The facts are as follows: The claimants before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, were the legal representatives of a rider of a two wheeler, which had collided with a goods vehicle, duly insured by the appellant. The claim was resisted by the appellant on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle held a licence to drive a light motor vehicle (non-transport) and the same was issued for a period of twenty years, for the period 11.4.2007 to 10.4.2027. The date of accident was 25.4.2008. Notwithstanding that the licence had been subsequently endorsed enabling the driver to drive heavy transport vehicles for the period 9-3-2009 to 8-3-2012. The point for consideration raised in the appeal is whether the driver held a valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident. Having regard to the law laid down in the aforesaid decisions, the answer is in the negative. However, the apex court in S.Iyyappan’s case supra, wherein after a review of the case law, it is held thus : “16. Having regard to the law laid down in the aforesaid decisions, the answer is in the negative. However, the apex court in S.Iyyappan’s case supra, wherein after a review of the case law, it is held thus : “16. The heading “Insurance of Motor Vehicles against Third-Party Risks” given in Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Chapter VIII of the 1939 Act) itself shows the intention of the legislature to make third-party insurance compulsory and to ensure that the victims of accident arising out of use of motor vehicles would be able to get compensation for the death or injuries suffered. The provision has been inserted in order to protect the persons travelling in vehicles or using the road from the risk attendant upon the user of the motor vehicles on the road. To overcome this ugly situation, the legislature has made it obligatory that no motor vehicle shall be used unless a third-party insurance is in force. 17. Reading the provisions of Sections 146 and 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it is evidently clear that in certain circumstances the insurer’s right is safeguarded but in any event the insurer has to pay compensation when a valid certificate of insurance is issued notwithstanding the fact that the insurer may proceed against the insured for recovery of the amount. Under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the insurer can defend the action inter alia on the grounds, namely, (i) the vehicle was not driven by a named person, (ii) it was being driven by a person who was not having a duly granted licence, and (iii) person driving the vehicle was disqualified to hold and obtain a driving licence. Hence, in our considered opinion, the insurer cannot disown its liability on the ground that although the driver was holding a licence to drive a light motor vehicle but before driving light motor vehicle used as commercial vehicle, no endorsement to drive commercial vehicle was obtained in the driving licence. In any case, it is the statutory right of a third party to recover the amount of compensation so awarded form the insurer. In any case, it is the statutory right of a third party to recover the amount of compensation so awarded form the insurer. It is for the insurer to proceed against the insured for recovery of the amount in the event there has been violation of any condition of the insurance policy.” In the light of the above, the appellant-insurer is bound to satisfy the award and proceed against the insured for recovery of the amount, as there has been a clear violation of a condition of the insurance policy. The amount of compensation in deposit be released in favour of the claimants. MFA 22002/2010 The appeal is by the insurance company questioning the liability fastened on the insurance company. The facts are as follows: The claimant before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, was the rider of a two wheeler, which had collided with a passenger carrying commercial vehicle, duly insured by the appellant. The claim was resisted by the appellant on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle held a licence to drive a light motor vehicle (non-transport) and the same was issued for a period of twenty years, for the period 6.8.2005 to 5.8.2025 and the driver was not authorised to drive a Passenger Carrying Commercial vehicle as on the date of the accident. The date of accident was 30.6.2008. The point for consideration raised in the appeal is whether the driver held a valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident. Having regard to the law laid down in the aforesaid decisions, the answer is in the negative. However, the decision in S.Iyyappan’s case supra covers the present case on hand on all fours, insofar as the Insurer’s liability is concerned. In the light of the above, the appellant-insurer is bound to satisfy the award and proceed against the insured for recovery of the amount, as there has been a clear violation of a condition of the insurance policy. The statutory amount in deposit to be remitted to the Tribunal for the benefit of the claimant and the appellant to deposit the remaining amount of compensation within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The claimants are permitted to withdraw the same on such deposit. The statutory amount in deposit to be remitted to the Tribunal for the benefit of the claimant and the appellant to deposit the remaining amount of compensation within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The claimants are permitted to withdraw the same on such deposit. MFA 23825/2009 & MFA 23824/2009 These appeals are by the insurance company questioning the liability fastened on the insurance company in MVC Nos.10/2009 and 11/2009. The facts are as follows: The claimant in MVC No.10/2009 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal was the injured son of one Manjunath Ramaray Shet, who had died on account of a truck having dashed against him. In respect of which, a claim was also lodged by the claimant as well as his mother, sister and brothers, as legal representatives in MVC No.11/2009. The claimant in MVC 10/2009 had claimed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-as compensation. The claims were resisted by the appellants on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle held a licence to drive a light motor vehicle for the period 7.3.2001 to 6.3.2021. Notwithstanding that he had subsequently obtained a licence to drive a transport vehicle with effect from 19.1.2005 to 18.1.2008. The date of accident was 6.7.2008 and therefore, the licence to drive a transport vehicle had expired and was not valid as on the date of the accident. The point for consideration raised in the appeal is whether the driver held a valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident. Having regard to the law laid down in the aforesaid decisions, the answer is in the negative. However, the decision in S.Iyyappan’s case supra covers the present case on hand on all fours insofar as the Insurer’s liability is concerned. In the light of the above, the appellant-insurer is bound to satisfy the award and proceed against the insured for recovery of the amount, as there has been a clear violation of a condition of the insurance policy. The statutory amount in deposit be remitted to the tribunal for the benefit of the claimants and the appellant to deposit the remaining amount of compensation within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The statutory amount in deposit be remitted to the tribunal for the benefit of the claimants and the appellant to deposit the remaining amount of compensation within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. MFA 20299/2010 This appeal is filed by the insurance company questioning the liability fastened on it, in a claim for compensation before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation. The claimant was said to be the driver of a goods vehicle bearing Registration no.KA 27/7249. The same is said to have collided into a motor cycle as on 9.9.2007. The claimant having suffered a fracture of the vertebra and having been assessed with a permanent disability of 55% was claiming compensation. The commissioner has awarded compensation in a sum of Rs.1,42,330/- and has fastened the liability on the insurer. The driving licence held by the claimant, who was the driver of the offending vehicle, was in respect of a Light motor vehicle, (non-transport) and was issued for a period of twenty years. The claimant had subsequently obtained a licence to drive a transport vehicle with effect from 26.10.2007. The date of accident was 9.9.2007. Hence a substantial question of law as to whether the driving licence possessed by the driver-claimant of the offending vehicle as on the date of the accident could be said to be a valid and effective driving licence, would arise for consideration. In the light of the settled legal position, the answer is in the negative. Having regard to a clear breach of the policy condition as the driver of the insured offending vehicle not possessing a valid and effective licence, the liability of the insurer is not attracted. The appeal is allowed. The liability fastened on the insurance company is set aside. The amount in deposit be refunded to the appellant-insurer. MFA 20907/2010 This appeal is filed by the insurance company questioning the liability fastened on it, in a claim for compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. While the claimant was said to be travelling in a goods vehicle bearing Registration no.KA 37/6402, to go to Gadag. The same is said to have collided into a motor cycle as on 9.9.2007. The claimant having suffered traumatic rupture of the globe of the right eye and having been assessed with a permanent disability of 54% was claiming compensation. While the claimant was said to be travelling in a goods vehicle bearing Registration no.KA 37/6402, to go to Gadag. The same is said to have collided into a motor cycle as on 9.9.2007. The claimant having suffered traumatic rupture of the globe of the right eye and having been assessed with a permanent disability of 54% was claiming compensation. The commissioner has awarded compensation in a sum of Rs.5,46,463/-and has fastened the liability on the insurer, owner and the respondent – driver. The driving licence held by the respondent, who was the driver of the offending vehicle, was in respect of a Light motor vehicle, (non-transport), and was issued for a period of twenty years. Whereas at the time of the accident, the claimant was driving a goods vehicle. Hence a substantial question of law as to whether the driving licence possessed by the driver of the offending vehicle as on the date of the accident could be said to be a valid and effective driving licence, would arise for consideration. In the light of the settled legal position, the answer is in the negative. Having regard to a clear breach of the policy condition as the driver of the insured offending vehicle not possessing a valid and effective licence, the liability of the insurer is not attracted. The appeal in MFA 20299/2010 is allowed. The liability fastened on the insurance company is set aside. The amount in deposit be refunded to the appellant-insurer. MFA 23011/2009 This appeal is filed by the insurance company questioning the liability fastened on it, in a claim for compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The claimant was said to be riding pillion on a two-wheeler bearing Registration no. KA 34/H-3099. The same is said to have collided into a jeep as on 22.4.2006. The claimant, according to the wound certificate, having suffered a simple injury and a grievous injury, namely, a distal 1/3rd comminuted fracture of left femur, was claiming compensation. The Tribunal has awarded compensation in a sum of Rs.1,17,000/-and has fastened the liability on the insurer and the owner. The driving licence held by the driver of the offending vehicle, was in respect of a Light motor vehicle, (non-transport) and was issued for a period of twenty years for the period 20.3.2006 to 19.3.2026 and it was not endorsed to enable him to drive a transport vehicle of any kind. The driving licence held by the driver of the offending vehicle, was in respect of a Light motor vehicle, (non-transport) and was issued for a period of twenty years for the period 20.3.2006 to 19.3.2026 and it was not endorsed to enable him to drive a transport vehicle of any kind. Hence, a substantial question of law that would arise for consideration is as to whether the driving licence possessed by the driver-claimant of the offending vehicle, as on the date of the accident could be said to be a valid and effective driving licence, would arise for consideration. Having regard to the law laid down in the aforesaid decisions, the answer is in the negative. The decision in S. Iyyappan’s case supra covers the present case on hand on all fours. In the light of the above, the appellant-insurer is bound to satisfy the award and proceed against the insured for recovery of the amount, as there has been a clear violation of a condition of the insurance policy. The statutory amount in deposit be remitted to the Tribunal for the benefit of the claimant and the appellant to deposit the remaining amount of compensation within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The claimants are permitted to withdraw the same on such deposit. MFA 23012/2009 This appeal is by the insurance company questioning the liability fastened on the insurance company in MVC 579/2006. The claimant was said to be riding a two-wheeler bearing Registration no. KA 34/H-3099. The same is said to have collided into a jeep as on 22.4.2006. The claimant having suffered injuries was claiming compensation. The Tribunal has awarded compensation in a sum of Rs.1,48,000/- and has fastened the liability on the insurer and the owner. The claim was resisted by the appellant on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle held a licence to drive a light motor vehicle for the period 20.3.2006 to 19.3.2026 and that the vehicle in question was not a light motor vehicle. The point for consideration raised in the appeal is whether the driver held a valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident. In the light of the settled legal position, the answer is in the negative. The point for consideration raised in the appeal is whether the driver held a valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident. In the light of the settled legal position, the answer is in the negative. Having regard to a clear breach of the policy condition as the driver of the insured offending vehicle not possessing a valid and effective licence, the liability of the insurer is not attracted. The appeal is allowed. The liability fastened on the insurance company is set aside. The amount in deposit be refunded to the appellant-insurer.