JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., has preferred this misc. appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1923') challenging the impugned judgment and award dated 09.09.2011 passed by learned Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, Pali in Claim Case No.W.C.F./01/2007- Smt. Indra Devi & Ors. v. Jalal Khan & Anr., whereby the learned Commissioner, has awarded the compensation to the claimants/ respondents to the tune of Rs. 3,94,120/- along with interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 02.10.2006, and liability to satisfy the said award was fastened upon the appellant/Insurance Company. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the claimants/respondents laid a claim on account of death of Sh. Mohanlal S/o Sh. Poonaram, who met with an accident on 02.09.2006 while he was working as Driver on a Jeep (RJ-22-T- 1282). The said vehicle was in the ownership of the Jalal Khan (respondent No.5 herein) and was insured with the present appellant/non-claimant New India Assurance Co. Ltd. At the time of accident, the deceased was 35 years of age. The claimants/respondents thus prayed for awarding them compensation of Rs. 3,94,120/-, Rs. 1,97,060/- penalty and Rs. 2500/- for funeral expenses along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. 3. The claim petition was opposed by the Insurance Company by taking the plea that at the time of accident, the deceased was not having the valid and effective licence to ply the said public transport vehicle and that the deceased was not in the employment of respondent No.5. On behalf of respondent No.5/owner it was stated that at the time of accident, the deceased was in his employment as Driver and since the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company, therefore, it is liable to pay the compensation. 4. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Tribunal proceeded to award compensation vide judgment dated 09.09.2011 in favour of claimants/respondents No.1 to 4 to the tune of Rs. 3,94,120/- along with interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 02.10.2006 and liability to satisfy the said award was fastened upon the appellant/New India Assurance Company. 4. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Tribunal proceeded to award compensation vide judgment dated 09.09.2011 in favour of claimants/respondents No.1 to 4 to the tune of Rs. 3,94,120/- along with interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 02.10.2006 and liability to satisfy the said award was fastened upon the appellant/New India Assurance Company. The relevant findings of the learned Tribunal on the Issue No.3 are quoted herein below for ready reference:- " fook|d la[;k 3% D;k mDr nq?kZVuk e'rd ds ikl oS/k ,oa izHkkoh M~kbZfoax ykbZlsUl ugha Fkk okgu dk oS/k ijfeV o fQVusl ugha Fkk rFkk chek ikfylh dh 'krksZa ds vuqlkj okgu dks pyk;k tk jgk Fkk\ izkFkhZ i{k ds vuqlkj oDr nq?kZVuk e'rd ds ikl ,y0,e0oh0 xSj ifjogu ;ku dks pykus dk oS/k ,oa izHkkoh M~kbZfoax ykbZlsUl Fkk tks fd fnukad 7-7-2011 rd izHkkoh FkkA vizkFkhZ ( 2 ) ds vuqlkj e'rd ds ,y0,e0oh0 ds led{k ifjogu ;ku ( cSt ) oS/krk fnukad 27-3- 2003 ls 14 -1-2006 rd Fkh ftldk uohuhdj.k ugha djk;k x;k FkkA pwafd oDr nq?kZVuk e'rd ifjogu ;ku pyk jgk Fkk ftldk oS/k ,oa izHkkoh ykbZlsUl mlds ikl ugha FkkA bl laca/k esa ifjogu foHkkx ls Hkh e'rd eksguyky ds ykbZlsUl ds laca/k esa tkudkjh yh xbZA ftyk ifjogu vf/kdkjh ds eksguyky ds ykbZlsUl ds laca/k esa tkudkjh yh xbZA ftyk ifjogu vf/kdkjh ds vuqlkj e'rd eksguyky iq= iqukjke ds ,y0,e0oh0 xSj ifjogu ;ku ykbZlsUl dh oS/krk fnukad 14-6-1993 ls fnukad 7-7-2011 rd Fkh rFkk ,y0,e0oh0 ds led{k ifjogu ;ku oSt oS/krk fnukad 27-3- 2003 ls 14 -4-2006 rd FkhA muds dk;kZy; fjdkMZ ds vuqlkj mDr ykbZlsal dk fnukad 27-3-2003 ds ckn muds dk;kZy; ls uohuhdj.k ugha gqvk gSA vizkFkhZ ( 2 ) ds xokg Jh izdk'kpan iqjksfgr iq= ojnhpan iqjksfgr ,oa ifjogu foHkkx dh vksj ls xokg larks"k dqekj iq= LoxhZ; Jh f'koukjk;.k }kjk vius l'kiFk c;kukr esa ;g dgk x;k gS fd fdlh vU; ifjogu dk;Zy; ls mDr ykbZlsUl /kkjd }kjk ykbZlsUl dk uohuhdj.k djok;k x;k gks rks eq>s irk ugha rFkk uk gh dk;kZy; esa bldk bUnzkt gSA izkFkhZ i{k ds xokg Jherh bUnzk iRuh LoxhZ; eksguyky }kjk vius l'kiFk c;kuksa esa vfHkdFku fd;k x;k fd og vius ifr dk ewy M~kbZfoax lkFk ysdj ugha vkbZ gSA ewy M~kbZfoax ykbZlsUl nq?kZVuk ds le; xqe gks ldrk gSA vr% mDr foospu ds vk/kkj ij ;g fuf'pr :i ls ugha dgk tk ldrk fd e'rd ds ikl oDr nq?kZVuk oS/k ,oa izHkkoh ykbZlsUl ugha FkkA vizkFkhZ i{k }kjk dksbZ Hkh ,slh lk{; is'k ugha dh xbZ gS ftlls ;g lkfcr gks fd oDr nq?kZVuk okgu dk oS/k ijfeV ,oa fQVusl ugha FkkA vr% oDr nq?kZVuk e'rd ds ikl oS/k ,oa izHkkoh ykbZlsUl ugha gksus] okgu dk oS/k ijfeV ugha gksus rFkk chek ikfylh dh 'krksZa ds vuqlkj okgu ugha pyk;k tkus laca/kh vfHkdFku viq"V gksus ds dkj.k Lohdk;Z ugha gSA " 5. The appellant-The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. has challenged the said award of the learned Tribunal to the extent fastening the liability to pay the compensation by the appellant in the instant appeal. 6. Mr. Jagdish Vyas, learned counsel for the appellant-New India Assurance Co. Ltd. submitted that the controversy involved in the present case is not long res-integra in view of decision Hon'ble the Supreme Court in number of cases, where the deceased driver was not holding the valid licence for plying the transport vehicle, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to satisfy the award but only employer/owner of the offending vehicle would be so liable. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Co. relied upon the following decision:- 1. National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mastan & Anr. reported in (2006) 2 SCC 641 , 2. Ishwar Chandra & Ors. v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. reported in 2007 ACJ 1067 3. National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Vidhyadhar Mahariwala & Ors. reported in 2008 ACJ 2860 . 4. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Magi & 5 Ors. reported in 2010 (4) WLC (Raj.) 144. 5. Ram Kumar v. Mangal Chand & Ors. (S.B.C.M.A. No.842/2009 decided on 28.11.2013 by a Coordinate Bench of this Court) 7. On the other hand, Mr. Bharat Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3/owner relied upon a judgment of Kerala High Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Venu reported in MACD 2012 (2) (Ker.) 1220 and urged that the Insurance Company has rightly been held liable to satisfy the award and, therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant Insurance Co. deserves to be dismissed. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record and the judgments cited at the Bar. 9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mastan & Anr. (supra) has held as under:- "21.Under the 1988 Act, the driver of the vehicle is liable but he would not be liable in a case arising under the 1923 Act. If the driver of the vehicle has no licence, the insurer would not be liable to indemnify the insured. Ltd. v. Mastan & Anr. (supra) has held as under:- "21.Under the 1988 Act, the driver of the vehicle is liable but he would not be liable in a case arising under the 1923 Act. If the driver of the vehicle has no licence, the insurer would not be liable to indemnify the insured. In a given situation, the Accident Claims Tribunal, having regard to its rights and liabilities vis-a-vis the third person may direct the insurance company to meet the liabilities of the insurer, permitting it to recover the same from the insured. The 1923 Act does not envisage such a situation. Role of Reference by incorporation has limited application. A limited right to defend a claim petition arising under one statute cannot be held to be applicable in a claim petition arising under a different statute unless there exists express provision therefor. Section 143 of the 1988 Act makes the provisions of the 1923 Act applicable only in a case arising out of no fault liability, as contained in Chapter X of the 1988 Act. The provisions of Section 143, therefore, cannot be said to have any application in relation to a claim petition filed under Chapter XI thereof. A fortiori in a claim arising under Chapter XI, the provisions of the 1923 Act will have no application. A party to a lis, having regard to the different provisions of the two Acts cannot enforce liabilities of the insurer under both the Acts. He has to elect for one. Section 167 of the 1988 Act statutorily provides for an option to the claimant stating that where the death of or bodily injury to any person gives rise to a claim for compensation under the 1988 Act as also the 1923 Act, the person entitled to compensation may without prejudice to the provisions of Chapter X claim such compensation under either of those Acts but not under both. Section 167 contains a non-obstante clause providing for such an option notwithstanding anything contained in the 1923 Act." 10. This Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Magi & Ors. Section 167 contains a non-obstante clause providing for such an option notwithstanding anything contained in the 1923 Act." 10. This Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Magi & Ors. (supra) has held as under:- "From the above, it is clear that if the driver of the offending vehicle is not having an effective and valid license to drive the vehicle in question like in the present case, where driver Usman Khan holding license to drive only light motor vehicle but he was driving a heavy motor vehicle namely the bus in question, there is apparently and established violation of the policy and insurance company cannot be asked to pay the compensation at all and it deserves to be exonerated from its liability altogether." 11. A coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Ram Kumar v. Mangal Chand & Ors. (supra) has held as under:- "The said judgment in no uncertain terms holds that if a vehicle is 'light motor vehicle', but falls under the category of transport vehicle, the driving licence has to be duly endorsed under Section 3 of the Act. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Angad Kol (supra) while relying on judgment in the case of Prabhu Lal (supra) and distinguishing the judgments in the case of Annapa Irappa Nesaria (supra) and Ashok Gangadhar Maratha (supra) held that driver in that case, who was holding driving licence to drive light motor vehicle did not hold a valid and effective driving licence for driving a goods vehicle and breach of conditions of the insurance was, therefore, apparent on the face of the record. The judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kusum Rai (supra) held that the driver holding driving licence to drive light motor vehicle was not entitled to drive a commercial vehicle. Similarly in the case of Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court held that driver holding driving licence for light motor vehicle was not entitled to drive an autorickshaw. Similarly in the case of Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court held that driver holding driving licence for light motor vehicle was not entitled to drive an autorickshaw. So far as the case of Annappa Irappa Nesaria (supra) is concerned, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case while relying on the position of Rules/Form prior to 28.03.2001 and the date of accident came to the conclusion that at the relevant point of time the light motor vehicle continued to govern both light passenger carriage vehicle and light goods carriage vehicle and, therefore, a driver, who had a valid licence to drive a light motor vehicle was authorised to drive a light goods vehicle as well. The said judgment has been considered in subsequent judgment by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Angad Kol (supra) and the same has been distinguished on account of the effective date i.e. 28.03.2001. Admittedly, in the present case, the accident has occurred on 10.11.2006 i.e. post 28.03.2001 and, therefore, the said judgment in the case of Annappa Irappa Nesaria (supra) has no application. The case of S. Iyyapan (supra) besides the fact that the said judgment does not take into consideration law laid down in the case of Angad Kol (supra) and Roshanben (supra), the accident had occurred on 23.05.1998 i.e. prior to 28.03.2001 and even as per view of the law laid down in Angad Kol's case, wherein, date of accident has been held to be having significance the judgment in the case of S. Iyyapan also does not help the cause of the appellant. The judgment of this Court in Smt. Kamli Devi (supra) has not taken into consideration the judgment of Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir (supra), which was delivered just a day before the case of Smt. Kamli Devi and is not in conformity with the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Angad Kol (supra) and Prabhu Lal (supra). The judgment of this Court in Smt. Kamli Devi (supra) has not taken into consideration the judgment of Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir (supra), which was delivered just a day before the case of Smt. Kamli Devi and is not in conformity with the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Angad Kol (supra) and Prabhu Lal (supra). This Court while considering the submissions of the parties that as the licence to drive light motor vehicle was issued prior to 28.03.2001 and, therefore, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Annappa Irappa Nesaria (supra) the said licence would be effective for a transport vehicle, in view of the endorsement on the licence restricting the same for 'other than transport vehicle' has negated the said argument in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Ashish Kumar & Anr. : S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.4346/2011 decided on 07.10.2012. In view of the above discussion and the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir (supra), Angad Kol (supra) and Prabhu Lal (supra), the person holding driving licence to drive light motor vehicle is not entitled to drive transport vehicle even if its gross vehicle weight is less than 7500 kgs. Applying the law to the case in hand, on the admitted facts of the case as noticed hereinbefore, wherein, the driver Narendra Kumar was holding a driving licence effective for driving light motor vehicle, which specifically contained endorsement regarding its validity 'other than transport vehicle', the finding recorded by the Tribunal on issue No.3, regarding violation of policy condition, does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the appeals have no substance and the same are, therefore, dismissed. No costs. Sd/- (ARUN BHANSALI)" 12. As against the consistent view the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court, the Kerala High Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Venu (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent No.5/employer, was on different set of facts where the vehicle insured was a goods vehicle and the deceased driver possessed a licence only to drive a passenger vehicle and in these circumstances, the Kerala High Court held that the Commissioner has to decide the issue as to whether the incident is the result of any act or omission attributable to the driver whose licence is under challenge. The para 6 of the said judgment is quoted herein below for ready reference:- "6. Therefore, in each case, the Commissioner has to decide on the issue as to whether the incident is the result of any act or omission attributable to the driver in question, whose licence is under challenge,. If the accident is out of circumstances which have no nexus with the driver not possessing the requisite type of licence, the insurer cannot escape the liability. The scope of such adjudication would arise only when there is a plea by the insurer that it was because of the default, neglect or negligence of the driver (workman in question) that the accident occurred. We have searched the entire written statement and additional written statement of the insurer. We see not a syllable of accusation against the deceased who was driving the vehicle in question, charging him with neglect or negligence in driving. In this view of the matter, we find no ground on which the insurer could have escaped the liability. We are, therefore, not persuaded to accept the argument on behalf of the insurer that the matter may be remitted for adjudication, at least on the eligibility of the insurer to be indemnified by the insured on satisfaction of the award." 13. The aforesaid judgment of Kerala High arose in different set of facts and the same cannot be applied in the present case. The consistent view of this Court following various Apex Court decisions, referred to supra, are that where the license is held for driving only Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) and the deceased driver is found to be plying public transport/goods vehicle, there is a violation of the policy conditions and the Insurance Company would not be liable to satisfy the award. Further, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ishwar Chand & Ors. v. O.I.C. & Ors. (supra) the liability to satisfy the award was fastened on the Insurance Company with a right to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle, also cannot be invoked in the present case. 14. Factually, in the present case the amount of compensation even though has been deposited by the appellant Insurance Company in terms of Section 30 of the W.C. Act, however, the said amount is said to be lying in FDR in the Bank. 14. Factually, in the present case the amount of compensation even though has been deposited by the appellant Insurance Company in terms of Section 30 of the W.C. Act, however, the said amount is said to be lying in FDR in the Bank. None is present on behalf of claimants/respondents No.1 to 4 despite service. Therefore, the exact status of the disbursement of the amount is not before this Court. 15. In the circumstances narrated above, the present appeal of the appellant- Insurance Company deserves to be allowed and the same is, accordingly, allowed and the judgment and award under appeal of the learned Workmen Commissioner, Pali on Issue No.3 deserves to be decided in favour of appellant Insurance Company. 16. Therefore, it is held that the appellant Insurance Company is not liable to satisfy the award in question and the only employer/respondent No.5, Jalal Khan S/o Goru Khan (owner of the vehicle) would be solely liable to satisfy the said award. If the compensation amount, deposited by the appellant New India Assurance Co. Ltd., has not already been disbursed to the claimants, the same may not to be disbursed to the claimants and the said amount may be refunded by the learned Commissioner to the appellant- Insurance Company along with interest accrued thereon; and the claimants/respondents would be at liberty to recover the said amount of compensation from the employer/owner of the vehicle. However, in case the amount of compensation has already disbursed to the claimants, then the appellant- New India Assurance Company Ltd., shall have the right to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle, Sh. Jalal Khan S/o Goru Khan under this order. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties and the learned Commissioner, Workman Compensation, Pali, forthwith.Appeal allowed. *******