JUDGMENT : B. Manohar, J. 1. The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance company filed this appeal challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment and award dated 7th February 2011 made in MVC No. 9503/2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short) fastening liability on them to compensate the claimant. 2. The first respondent herein filed a claim petition contending that on 01-11-2009 at about 2.40 p.m., while he was proceeding on the footpath new BEML Railway Station of Bangarpet-KGF Road, a Hero Honda Unicorn motor cycle bearing Registration No. KA-02/EP-9495 ridden by its rider in a rash and negligent manner came from KGF side and dashed against the claimant. Due to the said impact, the claimant fell down and sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to the Government Hospital at KGF. He had taken treatment there as an inpatient from 01-11-2009 to 04-11-2009. Prior to the accident, he was working as a mason and earning Rs. 7,500/- p.m. In view of the injuries and permanent disability suffered by the claimant, he cannot do the work of mason and sought for compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-. 3. In response to the notice issued by the Tribunal, the insurance company defended the case by filing the written statement and contended that rider of the Hero Honda motorcycle was not holding valid and effective driving license as on the date of accident. Hence, the insurance company is not liable to compensate the claimant. 4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues. 5. The claimant got examined himself as P.W. 1 and the doctor who treated him was examined as P.W. 2 and got marked the documents as Ex. P1 to Ex. P10. On behalf of the respondent-insurance company, two witnesses were examined as R.W. 1 and R.W. 2 and got marked the documents as Ex. R1 to Ex. R5. 6. The Tribunal, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence let in by the parties and taking into consideration spot mahazar, charge sheet, IMV report held that the claimant sustained injuries due to the rash and negligent riding of the Hero Honda motorcycle. Hence he is entitled for compensation. Taking into consideration the injuries sustained and suffering undergone by the claimant, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. Hence he is entitled for compensation. Taking into consideration the injuries sustained and suffering undergone by the claimant, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 3,43,400/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. With regard to liability is concerned, the insurance company had taken a specific contention that the rider of the motorcycle was not having valid and effective driving license as on the date of accident, he had license to drive only LMV (NT) and he cannot drive two wheeler, the Tribunal over-looking the said objection raised by the insurance company; relying upon the judgment reported in 2010 ACJ 2510 (SRINIVASAGOWDA AND ANOTHER vs. SANNAMMA AND OTHERS) held that rider of the motorcycle was having valid driving license to drive the LMV and therefore he is eligible to drive the scooter also and fastened the liability on the insurance company to compensate the claimant. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the insurance company has filed this appeal. 7. Smt. H.R. Renuka, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is contrary to the law laid down by the Full Bench decision of this Court rendered in MFA No. 12579/2007 disposed of on 1st September 2011. The Tribunal without taking into consideration the authoritative pronouncement of law by the Full Bench of this Court relying upon the Division Bench judgment referred to above, passed the judgment and award fastening liability on the insurance company to compensate the claimant which is contrary to law. The issue raised in this appeal is covered by the judgment of Full Bench decision of this Court and hence sought for setting aside the same by allowing this appeal. 8. On the other hand, Sri N. Gopalakrishna, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 argued in support of the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and contended that the rider of the motorcycle was having license to drive four wheeler. Hence, he is eligible to drive the two wheeler. He relied upon the judgment of this court reported in 2010 ACJ 2510 (Supra). Accordingly sought for dismissal of the appeal. 9. I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and award, oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties. 10. Hence, he is eligible to drive the two wheeler. He relied upon the judgment of this court reported in 2010 ACJ 2510 (Supra). Accordingly sought for dismissal of the appeal. 9. I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and award, oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties. 10. The quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not in dispute and the only dispute in this appeal is with regard to liability. The records clearly disclose that the rider of the offending motorcycle was having driving license to drive the LMV (NT) and he did not possess the driving license to ride the two wheeler. However, due to his rash and negligent riding of the Hero Honda motorcycle, he dashed against the claimant and the claimant has sustained injuries. 11. The learned Single Judge of this Court relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2008 ACJ 1928 (ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY vs. ZAHARULNISHA) wherein the Apex Court held that rider of the vehicle had no valid and effective licence to drive the vehicle on the date of accident because the scooterist was possessing driving licence for driving heavy motor vehicle but was found driving totally a different class of vehicle, hence, it was in violation of Section 10(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Further, the learned Single Judge noting the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in MFA No. 1133 & 5498 of 2003, wherein the Division Bench held that "The driver who had licence to drive heavy motor vehicle was driving two wheeler scooter held violated 10(2) of MV Act. But no reference was made as to whether a person authorized to drive higher capacity vehicle was deemed to possess valid licence to drive lower capacity vehicle viz., motor cycle. We are of the view that the driver who has valid licence to drive heavy motor vehicle is deemed to possess valid licence to drive scooter." The learned Single Judge referred the matter to the larger bench. The larger bench of this Court after examining the various provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and also the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at paragraphs 39 and 40 has held as under: 39. The larger bench of this Court after examining the various provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and also the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at paragraphs 39 and 40 has held as under: 39. Reading of section 10(1) & (2) along with Rule 16 and form No. 6, one has to understand whether the offending vehicle could come under the category of vehicles referred in section 10 and form No. 6 and then examine whether the driver of the offending vehicle was duly authorized to drive that class of vehicle with reference to type of vehicle involved in the accident, for example, if he was holding a licence to drive 'transport vehicle', one has to see whether the vehicle in question would attract the definition of 'transport vehicle' as defined at section 2(47) of the Act. If the licence refers to 'light motor vehicle', then the Tribunal has to examine whether the vehicle involved in the accident would fall under the classification of 'light motor vehicle'. Ultimately, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court has to first ascertain the nature of vehicle involved in the accident with reference to the definitions of different types of vehicle enumerated at section 2 of the Act, and then ascertain from the contents of the driving licence whether he has licence to drive a particular class of vehicle and then conclude whether he was duly authorized to drive that particular vehicle involved in the accident. Therefore, ultimately depending upon the nature of licence and the class of vehicle driven, the Tribunal has to see under which definition the vehicle would fit in and then examine whether the licence of the driver would cover that classification of vehicle. As long as the particular type of vehicle involved in the accident comes within the classification of the vehicle for which he holds the licence to drive, then there is no violation of conditions of policy. If the driver is found to be having licence to drive a particular class of vehicle but was found to be driving altogether a different class of vehicle, if that conflicts with the nature of vehicle classified under sub-section (2) of section 10, then one has to conclude that the driver was not duly authorized to drive that particular class of vehicle. This is subject to presumptions available as discussed above. 40. This is subject to presumptions available as discussed above. 40. Coming to the fact of the present case the driver was having a licence to drive a 'light motor vehicle' as defined under sec. 2(21) of the Act. But, the accident was caused involving a motor cycle. Definitely, motor cycle is not a 'light motor vehicle' as defined under the Act. 'Motor cycle' is defined at sub-sec. (27) of section 2. Section 10 and form 6 refers to 'motor cycle' as a different class of vehicle. Therefore, the driver of the vehicle in question has to be held as not duly authorized to drive the motor cycle. 12. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the law laid down by the Larger Bench of this Court referred to above, the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained. The rider of Motor cycle was not holding driving licence to drive the Motor cycle. Hence, the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal fastening the liability on the insurance company to compensate the claimant is liable to be set aside and the liability has to be fastened on the owner of the vehicle. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER The appeal is allowed. The judgment and award dated 07-02-2011 made in MVC No. 9503/2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore is modified. The insurance company is exonerated from its liability and the liability is fastened on the owner of the offending vehicle i.e. the second respondent herein to compensate the claimant. The Amount in deposit is directed to be refunded to the appellant.