JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J. 1. The Insurance Company has felt aggrieved by the judgment in MACP No. 143 of 1991 whereby a claim of Rs.30,000/- with 12% interest was allowed by Tribunal. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at length and the counsel for respondent. 3. The facts are not necessary as the Insurance Company has raised the issue of driving licence and contended that the licence to drive bus DLP No.6226 was there but as there was no endorsement to drive to such vehicle at the time of accident Insurance Company is not liable. 4. This appeal is listed under Chapter XII Rule 4 of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 which to be disposed of on merits. The driving licence of the driver was proved to be effective on the date of the accident. Nothing contrary to the same has been proved either before the Tribunal nor is it approved before this Court. The driver of the said bus was having a licence to drive light motor vehicle just because there was no endorsement for driving such type of vehicle it will not amount to fundamental breach of policy and I am supported in my view by the decision of the this Court in National Insurance Company. Ltd. Vs. Vidyawati Devi and two others In F.A.F.O. No.2389 of 2016 and the said decision has been followed by this Court in FAFO No. 789 of 2017 vide order dated 21.3.2017 wherein this Court has held as follows : - "1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Both these appeals raise identical issues and therefore, are taken up for hearing together. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the driver of the vehicle was not having license which was supposed to be held for driving a vehicle known as Tata Jeep Magic. In paragraph 7 he has relied on following authoritative pronouncements: "7. Because the Hon'ble Apex Court in its recent judgment, reported in 2016 TAC, Mukuna Devangan Vs. oriental Insurance Co. In paragraph 7 he has relied on following authoritative pronouncements: "7. Because the Hon'ble Apex Court in its recent judgment, reported in 2016 TAC, Mukuna Devangan Vs. oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., has observed that the grant of license to drive Transport Vehicle, became effective from 28th March, 2001 i.e. the date on which the Form was amended and held that the vehicle was Goods Vehicle, as such the driver did not hold a valid driving license for driving a Goods Vehicle, and considered the earlier judgments in case of S.Iyyapan Vs. United India Ins. Co. 2013 TAC (3) page 392, Kulwant Singh Vs. Oriental Ins. Co.2014 TAC(4) page 676, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Prabhu Lal,, 2008 TAC(1), New India Assurance Co.Ltd., Vs. Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir 2008 TAC(3) page 20 and Oriental Ins.Co. Vs. Angad Kol 2009 TAC(2) page 4, the view taken is that it is necessary for holder of Light Motor Vehicle License, to obtain specific endorsement on its license, to drive Transport Vehicle of the light Motor Vehicle weight and due to conflict in the above decisions, the Hon'ble Apex Court has referred the matter to a larger Bench." Recently, this High Court in F.A.F.O 2389 of 2016 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Vidyawati Devi And 2 Others held as follows: "It is no doubt correct that issue with respect to grant of future prospects has been referred to a larger Bench for adjudication in the case of National Insurance Company v. Smt. Pushpa Devi & others, 2015(9) SCC 166 and Shashikal and others Vs. Gangalakshmamma and another, 2015 (2) T.A.C. 867 (S.C.). But equally settled is the proposition that unless an adjudication by a larger Bench is pronounced, the judgment, which has been referred, does not loose its efficacy and continues to have all the binding force. In such view of the matter, the view taken by the three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Cour in case of Munna Lal Jain (supra) and Rajesh (Supra) still holds good. Thus, addition of 50% income towards future prospects awarded by the Tribunal cannot be faulted with." And therefore the earlier decision of the apex Court will enure for the benefit of the claimants and the owner. 3. Thus, addition of 50% income towards future prospects awarded by the Tribunal cannot be faulted with." And therefore the earlier decision of the apex Court will enure for the benefit of the claimants and the owner. 3. The next issue which learned counsel for the appellant has raised is that the driver of the alleged vehicle had no license or fake license and, therefore, also the Insurance Company is not liable. It is submitted that the said vehicle was driven in violation of statutory provisions enunciated in Section 147 read with Section 149 (2) (a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 4. The finding of the fact by the Tribunal is very clear. It is submitted that the said vehicle was driven in violation of statutory provisions enunciated in Section 147 read with Section 149 (2) (a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 4. The finding of the fact by the Tribunal is very clear. The Tribunal in its findings recorded as follows; ^^okn fcanq laŒ-„% ;g okn fcanq bl vk'k; dk fojfpr fd;k x;k gS fd D;k dfFkr nq?kZVuk ds le; okgu VkVk eSftd laŒ;wŒihŒˆ…Vh&‡‰†0 ds pkyd ds ikl oS/k o izHkkoh pkyu vuqKfIr Fkh] ;fn gkW rks izHkko\ bl lEcU/k esa foi{kh laŒ&ƒ okgu pkyd nhid dk vius mŸkj&i= „ˆd dh /kkjk &ƒƒ esa dFku gS fd dfFkr nq?kZVuk ds le; mlds ikl xkM+h laŒ;wŒihŒˆ…Vh&‡‰†0 dks pykus dk oS/k ,oa izHkkoh ykblsal ekStwn FkkA bl izdkj nq?kZVuk ds le; pkyd ikl xkM+h laŒ ;wŒihŒˆ…Vh&‡‰†0 dks pykus dk oS/k ,oa izHkkoh ykblsal ekStwn FkkA blh izdkj dk dFku okgu Lokeh vt; dqekj foi{kh laŒ&2 dh vkSj ls Hkh vius mŸkj&i= ds /kkjk&ƒƒ esa fd;k x;k gSA bl laEcU/k esa lwph ‡x ls ;kph fd vkSj ls dk-l- ƒ… x okgu pkyd nhid ds Mªkbfoax ykblsal dh Nk;k izfr Hkh nkf[ky dh xbZ gS] ftlls foi{kh laŒ&ƒ o „ ds mijksDr dFku fd iqf"V gksrh gSA bl lEcU/k esa foi{kh laŒ&… chek daiuh ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dh vkSj ls rdZ izLrqr djrs gq, dgk x;k gS fd okgu pkyd nhid ds mDr pkyd ykblsal dk LkR;kiu mUgksus ,-vkj-Vh- vks- ehjtkiqj ds dk;kZy; ls djk;k Fkk] ftlds vuqlkj ;g MhŒ,yŒ fnukad 0…-0„-„0ƒ† dks tkjh gqvk Fkk] ftldh oS/krk dh frfFk 0„-0„-„0…† rd gS vkSj mDr eksVjlkbfdy@xs;j lfgr ,yŒ,eŒohŒ ¼,uŒVhŒ½ ds fy, oS/k n'kkZ;k x;k gSA bl vk/kkj ij foi{kh chek daiuh ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dk dguk gS fd pw¡fd ?kVuk fnukad 0ˆ-ƒ„-„0ƒ† dh gS vkSj VªkaliksVZ okgu dk Mªkbfoax ykblsal mls fnukad ƒ‡-0ƒ-„0ƒˆ dks feyk Fkk] blfy, ;g ekuk tk;sxk fd nq?kZVuk dh frfFk ij mlds ikl oS/k Mªkbfoax ykblsal ugh FkkA ;kph ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dh vkSj ls foi{kh ds vf/koDrk ds bl rdZ dk [kaM+u djrs gq, dgk x;k gS fd mDr nq?kZVuk VkVk eSftd ls gksuk n'kkZ;k x;k gS vkSj VkVk eSftd okgu gYds eksVjokgu dh Js.kh esa gh vkrh gS blfy, foi{kh chek daiuh ds vf/koDrk dk ;g rdZ xyr gS vkSj ?kVuk ds le; mldk ykblsal oS/k o izHkkoh FkkA ;kph ,oa foi{kh laŒƒ o „ fo}ku vf/koDrk dk ;g Hkh dguk gS fd eksVjokgu vf/kfu;e ds izkfo/kkuksa ds vuqlkj ,d fuf'pr Hkkj rd dh pkj ifg;k okgu gYds eksVj okgu ds Js.kh esa vkrs gS vkSj VkVk eSftd okgu dk otu bl fu/kkZfjr lhek ls cgqr gS ,slh fLFkfr esa okgu pkyd nhid dk Mªkbfoax ykblsal nq?kZVuk ds le; oS/k o izHkkoh ekuk tk;sxkA eS ;kph ,oa foi{kh laŒ ƒ o „ ds fo}ku vf/koDrk ds mijksDr rdZ ls lger gw¡A vr% ;g lkfcr gS fd nq?kZVuk ds le; VkVk eSftd okgu laŒ ;wŒih ˆ…Vh&‡‰†0 ds pkyd ds ikl oS/k o izHkkoh pkyu vuqKfIr FkhA vr% okn fcUnq laŒ2 rnuqlkj ldkjkRed :i ls fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gSA 5. And, therefore, the fact that the Tata Jeep Magic had ladened weight which was of light motor vehicle and therefore, just because there was no endorsement for transport vehicle it cannot be said that there was breach of policy conditions. The vehicle in question on factual dispute also was proved to be a Tata Jeep Magic whether was used as transport would also be a question of fact, and, therefore, this Court does not think that any case is made out for interference in well reasoned judgment of the Tribunal. The license produced cannot said to be in breach of Section 149 (2) (a) which reads as follows: "149 (2) (a) that there has been a breach of a specified condition of the policy, being one of the following conditions, namely:- (i) a condition excluding the use of the vehicle- (a) for hire or reward, where the vehicle is on the date of the contract of insurance a vehicle not covered by a permit to ply for hire or reward, or (b) for organised racing and speed testing, or (c) for a purpose not allowed by the permit under which the vehicle is used, where the vehicle is a transport vehicle, or (d) without side-car being attached where the vehicle is a motor cycle; or (ii) a condition excluding driving by a named person or persons or by any person who is not duly licensed, or by any person who has been disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence during the period of disqualification; or (iii) a condition excluding liability for injury caused or contributed to by conditions of war, civil war, riot or civil commotion; or" 6. Nothing contrary was proved that the vehicle was given to a driver to drive without taking care and caution by the owner of the vehicle. R.T. Officer was never examined by the Insurance Company. In the absence of anything proved to the contrary, it cannot be said that there was any breach of condition. 7. These appeals sans merits and are dismissed without notice to the other side under Order 41 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908." 5. R.T. Officer was never examined by the Insurance Company. In the absence of anything proved to the contrary, it cannot be said that there was any breach of condition. 7. These appeals sans merits and are dismissed without notice to the other side under Order 41 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908." 5. This was the only ground urged and, therefore, the same is rejected it was not even proved whether the owner had handed over the vehicle to a person who was unqualified to drive the said vehicle in absence of these factual data, this appeal devoid of merit and hence dismissed. 6. Even on the smallness of the amount, this appeal is dismissed. 7. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.