JUDGMENT : Both these appeals are directed against the common judgment and award dated 31.12.2009 passed by the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Bagalkot, (for short, ‘the Commissioner’) in W.C.A. NF. No. 46/2008 and W.C.A. NF. No.47/2008. 2. The claim petitions were filed by workmen, before the Commissioner, in respect of the injuries suffered by them in an accident dated 02.12.2007 involving the tempo trax jeep bearing Reg. No.KA29/8190. 3. The claimants’ case before the Commissioner was, they are employed as cleaner and driver respectively in the Tempo Trax bearing Reg. No.KA29/8190 which belong to their employer respondent No.2 herein. On 02.12.007 while proceeding in the said vehicle towards Bagalkot, the vehicle met with an accident near Choragasti Adda of Kerur. As a result, the workmen suffered fracture injuries. They were treated in a private hospital as in patients. They are not able to work properly because of the accidental injuries. Both of them are aged about 35 and 40 years respectively. The workman – cleaner was earning monthly salary of Rs.4,000/- and Rs.50/- as bhatta per day. The workman – driver was earning monthly salary of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.50/- as bhatta per day. Thus, both of them have claimed compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- each from the insurer. In response to the notice of the Commissioner, though the owner and insurer have appeared before the Commissioner, only insurer filed objection statement to the claim petition. 4. The insurer disputed the employer and employee relationship between the claimants and owner of offending vehicle. The very occurrence of accident, injuries suffered, expenses met by the claimants/workmen were also disputed. It was specifically urged that the driver of vehicle did not have an effective and valid licence to drive the vehicle. The Commissioner, on appreciation of the evidence placed on record, found that the claimants workmen are employees of the owner of offending vehicle and have suffered injuries during the course of their employment. Placing reliance on the following judgments ; i. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Chikkappaiah, reported in 2009 ACJ 1283 ; ii. Ashok Gangadhar Maratha v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in 2000 ACJ 319; iii. National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Annappa Irappa Nesaria, reported in (2008)3 Supreme Court Cases 464; iv. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir, reported in (2008)8 Supreme Court Cases 253; and v. National Insurance Co. Ashok Gangadhar Maratha v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in 2000 ACJ 319; iii. National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Annappa Irappa Nesaria, reported in (2008)3 Supreme Court Cases 464; iv. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir, reported in (2008)8 Supreme Court Cases 253; and v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, reported in 2004 ACJ 1, the Commissioner held that the driver had license to drive light motor vehicle and thereby he was permitted to drive light Transport vehicle also. He further held that it was permissible to carry people in a goods vehicle and thus capitalised the entitlement of workmen under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, ‘W.C. Act’). 5. Heard Sri G.N. Raichur, learned counsel for the appellant. Respondents though served are not represented. 6. It is established before Commissioner that the driver had a licence to drive a light motor vehicle/Non-Transport issued for a term of 20 years commencing from 12.07.2006. May be there are circumstances, the licence held by a driver in respect of light motor vehicle was held valid to drive Transport vehicle when it was found the unladen weight of the Transport vehicle was below 7500 kgs. or the said Transport vehicle met with the accident without carrying goods. It was also held valid when the driver was issued licence to drive light motor vehicle for a term of 20 years prior to amendments carried out to the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short, ‘Rules’), a prospective operation i.e., post 28.03.2001. Subsequent to the amendment, an applicant seeking licence would express in his application submitted to the authorities in Form No.4 of Rules, the description of vehicle out of nine types of vehicle contemplated by Rule 14 of the Rules. Out of nine category of vehicles, licence in respect of light motor vehicle/non-transport and licence in respect of ‘Transport vehicle’ are distinct and different. The tenure of these licences is also different, while 20 years is the currency of light motor vehicle. Licence for non-transport vehicle has to be renewed every three years. The controversy whether a licence held in the policy of light motor vehicle non-transport holds good for transport vehicle is no more res integra. The tenure of these licences is also different, while 20 years is the currency of light motor vehicle. Licence for non-transport vehicle has to be renewed every three years. The controversy whether a licence held in the policy of light motor vehicle non-transport holds good for transport vehicle is no more res integra. By a host of judgments this Court has expressed that licence for light motor vehicle is not valid to drive a transport vehicle though the unladen weight of the said vehicle is that of light motor vehicle i.e., below 750 kgs. 7. The policy in question does not cover the risk of employees of the vehicle though there is accommodation in the vehicle for three persons. No premium is collected towards liability of paid driver or other employees. The driver who is the claimant herein was prosecuted on the allegation of rash and negligent driving and for causing the accident. Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short, ‘M.V. Act’) contemplates necessity for holding effective driving licence. No one can drive a transport vehicle without a licence issued specifically entitling him to drive the said vehicle. Section 4 of the MV Act contemplates age restriction in connection with driving of the motor vehicle. Section 5 of the MV Act mandates an owner or a person-in-charge of a vehicle from permitting any person to drive a motor vehicle who does not satisfy provision of Section 3 and Section 4 of the Act. It is one of the insurance policy conditions that, ‘…….. the person driving holds an effective driving licence at the time of the accident and not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence.’ 8. Thus, it is clear that the driver did not possess valid and effective licence to drive the Tempo Trax/a Transport vehicle and owner of the vehicle committed violation of Section 5 of M.V. Act and committed breach of condition of contract under insurance policy. 9. Breach of condition of policy is a valid ground available to an insurer while contesting a claim under Section 166 of M.V. Act. Section 149(2)(a)(i) of M.V. Act specifically touches the situation where the driver is not duly licensed, the insurance company can raise the defense to shield itself from its contractual obligation with the owner. 9. Breach of condition of policy is a valid ground available to an insurer while contesting a claim under Section 166 of M.V. Act. Section 149(2)(a)(i) of M.V. Act specifically touches the situation where the driver is not duly licensed, the insurance company can raise the defense to shield itself from its contractual obligation with the owner. Of course, in an adjudication under the M.V. Act, the burden of proving the defence of driver not holding a valid and effective licence is on the insurer. But, we are in the premise of the W.C. Act, where the driver himself is the claimant. He cannot take over the position of an accused person in a criminal trial to maintain silence until other side proves its case. The insurer is not under obligation until in a criminal trial to prove its allegations beyond reasonable doubt. Having come before the Commissioner with the story of injury sustained “out of and during the course of employment”, he has to prove that he held a valid licence to drive the Tempo Trax which he has omitted. Driving a vehicle without a valid licence in contravention of Sections 3 and 4 of the M.V. Act is an offence under Section 18 of the M.V. Act. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Kavitha Dilip Patil and Others v. Ananda Gnanu Patil and Another, 2004(2) Kar.L.J. 569 (FB) has addressed the question, “whether restrictions on the defences available to an insurance company in terms of Section 149(2) of Motor Vehicles Act have any application to proceedings under the Workmen’s Compensation Act?” 10. Upon consideration of various provisions of the M.V. Act including Sections 143, 167 and 149 thereof, it was held thus : “…………………… under the W.C. Act, the Insurance Company can only agitate violation of any condition of the policy to make substantial question of law, and therefore, the question of raising other defences available in terms of Section 149(2) of the M.V. Act does not arise.” It was further held that “……………… Therefore, the insurer cannot prefer any appeal either challenging the quantum of compensation or any other grounds except the ground available to him under Section 149(2) of the M.V. Act.” 11. Rightly the appellant has raised question of liability to indemnify the owner on the ground of breach of policy condition. Rightly the appellant has raised question of liability to indemnify the owner on the ground of breach of policy condition. The workmen are not third parties whose risk is covered in the policy. There is no obligation for the appellant to comply compensation on two counts. Firstly, breach of policy condition, and secondly, no premium having been collected in respect of paid driver and employee. 12. For the discussions made supra, both the appeals are allowed. The appellant – insurer in both the appeals is absolved of it’s liability under the contract of insurance to pay compensation to the claimants.