JUDGMENT : 1. By consent of learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the claimants in all these appeals, these appeals are taken up for final disposal and they are being disposed of by common judgment as they involve a common question of law. Filing of paper book is dispensed with. 2. The appellant was the insurer of the Truck bearing registration number MH-12/DG-0923 involved in the accident. This truck was owned at the time of accident by Shri Abdul Rahim Sk. Lal, made one of the respondents in these appeals. The accident occurred on 11.12.2013 at about 21.30 hours when the truck was being driven from Kherda to Kamargaon. The accident occurred in front of Krishi Utpanna Bazar Samiti, Kamargaon. The accident occurred when the driver on the truck was overtaking the luxury bus which resulted in loss of control over the stearing wheel by the truck driver and it getting dashed against a tree standing on the wrong side of the truck. The truck was loaded with some labourers and many of those labourers died in this accident. The claimants in these five appeals are the dependents and legal heirs of those labourers who died in the accident. They are also joined as respondents in these appeals. 3. When claim petitions were filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act by the claimants, they were resisted by the appellant on several grounds, one of them being the breach of the essential conditions of the insurance policy by the driver and owner of the truck. This breach was alleged to be in the nature of absence of having any valid licence by the truck driver at the time of accident. On merits of the case, all the claim petitions were allowed by the Tribunal by separate judgments, but delivered on the same day i.e. 15th November 2016 in MACP Nos. 12 of 2014; 13 of 2014; 11/2014; 14/2014 and 15/2014. Since the appellant was not satisfied with the finding recorded on the point of breach of essential conditions of the insurance policy, the appellant is before this Court in these five appeals. 4. I have heard Shri M. N. Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri S. D. Chopde, learned counsel for the claimants. None appears for the owner of the truck involved in the accident. 4. I have heard Shri M. N. Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri S. D. Chopde, learned counsel for the claimants. None appears for the owner of the truck involved in the accident. Now, the only point that arises that for my determination is – Whether it is proved in these cases that breach of the insurance policy was wilful ? 5. The evidence of the truck owner in this case is relevant. On going through his evidence, one can find that he had taken all the reasonable care a truck owner is expected to take before he engaged the driver of the truck involved in the truck. In the accident, the driver also died. The owner of the truck, PW 2 Abdul Rahim s/o Sheikh Lal (exhibit 38) in his evidence stated that he had engaged deceased Sanjay Shinde as driver on the truck about 3-4 years prior to the accident and that he had taken his test of competency of driving and was satisfied with the driving skills of Sanjay. He also stated that he had made enquiries about the driving licence of deceased Sanjay and was satisfied with the same. If one goes through the cross-examination of this witness taken on behalf of the appellant, one would find that such an evidence of the truck owner has not been controverted by the appellant. There is not a single suggestion given to this witness that his evidence in this regard was false or inconsistent with the facts available on record. So, it would have to be said that the owner took all reasonable care about his driver having skills and legal authority to drive the truck before he engaged him. 6. The other facts available on record disclosed that deceased Sanjay-truck driver held two kinds of licences – one for the transport vehicle and the other for non-transport vehicle. The licence for transport vehicle had expired on 14.12.2012 while the licence for non-transport vehicle was valid till 9.11.2015. The truck involved in the accident being a transport vehicle and unquestionably, licence of deceased Sanjay Shinde having expired on 14.12.2012, it would have to be held that at the time of accident, deceased Sanjay Shinde did not possess a valid driving licence for driving a transport vehicle like the truck involved in the accident. The truck involved in the accident being a transport vehicle and unquestionably, licence of deceased Sanjay Shinde having expired on 14.12.2012, it would have to be held that at the time of accident, deceased Sanjay Shinde did not possess a valid driving licence for driving a transport vehicle like the truck involved in the accident. If this is so, one would have to say that there was a breach of essential condition of the insurance policy. 7. But, the matter does not end here. It has to be looked at from the perspective of the owner of the truck who engaged the driver for driving the truck. If it is seen that while engaging him and also continuing him to be a driver on the truck in question, the owner was negligent or careless in not enquiring about and verifying about the possession of a valid transport, then it would have to be said that the truck owner being negligent, himself was responsible for breach of the essential condition of the policy. In other words, such breach would have to be termed as wilful breach. 8. In the case of Sohan Lal Passi v. P. Sesh Reddy & ors. reported in AIR 1996 SC 2627 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed thus : “.... In a case where the person who has got insured the vehicle with the insurance company, has appointed a duly licensed driver and if the accident takes place when the vehicle is being by a person not duly licensed on the basis of the authority of the driver duly authorised to drive the vehicle whether the insurance company in that event shall be absolved from its liability? The expression “breach” occurring in Section 96 (2) b) means infringement or violation of a promise or obligation. As such the insurance company will have to establish that the insured was guilty of an infringement or violation of a promise. The insurer has also to satisfy the Tribunal or the Court that such violation or infringement on the part of the insured was wilful. As such the insurance company will have to establish that the insured was guilty of an infringement or violation of a promise. The insurer has also to satisfy the Tribunal or the Court that such violation or infringement on the part of the insured was wilful. If the insured has taken all precautions by appointing a duly licensed driver to drive the vehicle in question and it has not been established that it was the insured who allowed the vehicle to be drived by a person not duly licensed, then the insurance company cannot repudiate its statutory liability under subsection (1) of Section 96.....” 9. In the present case, it is seen that the owner of the truck had taken all reasonable care in engaging the deceased driver for the purpose of driving the truck in question and he had even enquired about possession of valid driving licence by him and was satisfied about the same. The deceased driver had even possessed licence for a transport vehicle, but it had expired some time about one year prior to the occurrence of the accident and it appears that the driver did not take enough care to renew the licence. But, the fact remains that at the time of his engagement by the owner of the truck as a driver, the owner had not only satisfied himself about the possession of valid driving licence, but the driver himself did possess such a driving licence. Now, if during the course of employment of driver, if the driving licence expired and is not renewed by the driver, blame for it cannot be placed upon the shoulder of owner unless it is shown that the owner too had knowledge about the same. However, there is no evidence brought on record by the appellant to prove such knowledge of the owner. Therefore, the breach of the insurance policy in the instant case cannot be termed as a wilful breach as rightly found by the Tribunal. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has invited my attention to the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Angad Kol & ors reported in (2009) 11 SCC 356 wherein it is held that although the definition of the “light motor vehicle” brings within its umbrage both “transport vehicle” or “omnibus”, indisputably, a distinction between an effective licence granted for transport vehicle and passenger motor vehicle exists. It is further held that the distinction between a “light motor vehicle” and a “transport vehicle” is evident. A transport vehicle may be a light motor vehicle but for the purpose of driving the same, a distinct licence is required to be obtained. The distinction between a “transport vehicle” and a “passenger vehicle” can also be noticed from Section 14 of the Act. Learned counsel further submits that the Tribunal in the present case has perhaps been carried away by the fact that the deceased possessed a valid driving licence for non-transport vehicle. Sofar as concerned the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Angad Kol & ors (supra) and view taken by the learned single Judge of this Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Devnath M. Yadav & ors reported in 2015 (5) Mh. L. J. 231, there can be no dispute about the same. There is in law a clear distinction between the two licence. But, in the instant case, there is also no dispute about the fact that out of two licences possessed by the deceased driver, one licence relating to a transport vehicle had already expired on the date of the accident. Therefore, the question involved was not just about breach of the condition of the insurance policy, but also a wilful breach of the insurance policy and the same has been decided by recording a finding that there was no wilful breach of the insurance policy by owner of the truck. Therefor, the cases cited by learned counsel for the appellant would not help the appellant in any case. 11. In the result, I find that there is no merit in these appeals and they deserve to be dismissed. The point is answered accordingly. Appeals stand dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. Claimants are at liberty to withdraw the amounts deposited in this Court by the appellant.