JUDGMENT Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. 1. Present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-United India Insurance Company Limited under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and order dated 29.01.2011 rendered by learned Additional District Judge/ 1st FTC/ Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dehradun, in Motor Accidents Claim Petition No.138 of 2003, “Irshad Ali and Others Vs. Ishtkhar and Others,” awarding a sum of Rs.3,24,000/- (Rupees Three Lacs Twenty Four Thousand) to the claimants, as compensation, against the appellant, along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the Claim Petition. 2. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company as well as learned counsel for the claimants (respondent nos.1 to 5 and 8), it transpires that the offending vehicle Tempo Trax was a transport/ commercial vehicle which met an accident on 3rd July, 2003 causing death of Mr. Ayyub. Learned Tribunal culminated the proceedings by fastening liability of Rs.3,24,000/- (Rupees Three Lacs Twenty Four Thousand) upon the Insurance Company by way of impugned judgment and order dated 29.01.2011. 3. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has vociferously argued that the offending vehicle Tempo Trax was a transport/commercial vehicle in nature, carrying 12 passengers on hire at the relevant time and was being driven by its driver Ishtkhar with a licence, not befitting to drive the transport/commercial vehicle. It was thus, submitted that it means that the driving licence of the driver Ishtkhar was for light motor vehicles only at the relevant time and a person holding such licence could not be permitted to drive a transport/ commercial vehicle. 4. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court, National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Kusum Rai and Others, (2006) 4 SCC 250 , where, a taxi was being driven by a person holding the driving licence for light motor vehicles only; then the Hon’ble Apex Court was of the view that it was an evident breach of the condition of contract of insurance because Section 3 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 makes distinction in the nature of light motor vehicle and transport /commercial vehicle and envisages the separate driving licenses for both kind of vehicles. 5. 5. In that case (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court though declined to interfere from fastening liability upon the Insurance Company but at the same time, payment, so made by the Insurance Company, was made recoverable as contemplated in Nanjappan case [ (2004) 13 SCC 224 ] and in that case, the Hon’ble Apex Court said that before release of the amount to the claimants, owner of the vehicle shall be issued a notice and he shall be required to furnish security for the entire amount which the insurer will pay to the claimants. 6. Reliance was further placed on an another judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Prabhu Lal, (2008) 1 SCC 696 , in which it was held that when the transport vehicle was being driven by a person holding the driving licence for light motor vehicles only, then the Insurance Company is not liable to make good the loss of the owner of the vehicle on account of such accident because a person holding driving licence to ply light motor vehicles only, could not ply transport/commercial vehicles. 7. Further, Section 14(2) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 makes separate provisions for renewal of such transport/commercial vehicles from time to time and such driving licence is renewed only for three years unlike the driving licence of light motor vehicles. 8. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has also placed heavy reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court, National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Challa Bharathamma and Others, (2004) 8 SCC 517 , where, the transport vehicle was being plied for hire or reward without having valid permit, yet the High Court fastened liability upon the Insurance Company on the premise since there was no permit, the question of violation of any condition thereof did not arise of the violation of the terms and conditions of such contract. In such eventuality, the Hon’ble Apex Court said that the view of the High Court is clearly fallacious because such person without a permit to ply a vehicle cannot be placed in a better position vis-à-vis one who has a permit, but has violated any condition thereof. 9. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that the Tempo Trax was carrying 12 passengers, so it cannot be said that it was being plied in an empty stage but it was used for some hire or reward. 9. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that the Tempo Trax was carrying 12 passengers, so it cannot be said that it was being plied in an empty stage but it was used for some hire or reward. That being the position, the vehicle should have been under valid permit, which it was not. The averment to this effect was taken by the Insurance Company in the written statement but no issue was formulated much less any finding was recorded by the Trial Court regarding permit of the vehicle. 10. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the Insurance Company, the Court hereby allows the appeal in the following terms:- (1) The imminent liability to pay compensation to the claimants will be upon the Insurance Company. (2) The entire awarded amount has already been deposited by the Insurance Company in the Tribunal, out of which, one-half of the same has already been released to the claimants. It is made clear that the remaining amount shall not be released to the claimants until the notice is issued and served to the owner of the vehicle to furnish the security for the entire amount of compensation. (3) After such security is deposited by owner of the vehicle to the satisfaction of the Tribunal, then only one-half of the awarded amount shall be released to the claimants and Insurance Company shall be at liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle as has been contemplated in Nonjappan Case. (4) If the security is not furnished by owner of the vehicle within two months from service of notice, then the amount shall not be released to the claimants and it will be remitted back to the Insurance Company. In that case claimants will be at liberty to execute the orders of compensation against vehicle owner.