ORDER : A.M. Shaffique, J. By reference order dated 9.11.2015, a Division Bench of this Court had doubted the judgment of a Full Bench of this Court in National Insurance Company Ltd v. Jisha K.P. & Ors. ( 2015 (1) KLT 1 (F.B.)) on certain points. The Full Bench while deciding the above case considered the point, whether the absence of a badge by the driver of a transport vehicle is sufficient to exonerate the Insurance Company from the liability to pay compensation to the claimant or whether an Insurance Company is entitled to recover the compensation paid by them to the claimant from the owner. It was held that the Insurance Company will have to prove that absence of a badge was a fundamental breach which has contributed to the cause of accident. While coming to such a finding it was held that when the driver was holding a valid licence to drive a light motor vehicle, merely because he did not get any endorsement in the driving licence to drive a commercial vehicle, the insurer will still be liable to pay compensation. 2. In the reference order (Shaji v. Pradeesh reported in 2016 (1) KLT 1 ) the Division Bench, while affirming the view, posed a question at para 17 as under : “17. Now comes to the question as to the absence of ‘badge’. If it were mere absence of badge, it could only be technical, which would confer no right of recovery upon the insurer, as held by the Full Bench of this Court in 2015 (1) KLT 1 (F.B.) (cited supra). But if it is an absence of specific authorisation to drive a ‘transport vehicle’ (which can be acquired only after obtaining one year’s experience as stipulated under S.7 of the Act), the position may be different.” 3. Proceeding further it was held at paras 23 and 24 as under: “23. It is also relevant from the rules quoted above that, on obtaining authorisation to drive transport vehicle, the person concerned shall be given a metallic badge showing him as a driver as contemplated therein. In other words, a ‘badge’ is a material object given to the party, who is authorised to drive a transport vehicle, to be given while returning the licence after effecting endorsement as to his authorisation as provided in R.11 of the Kerala Rules. In other words, a ‘badge’ is a material object given to the party, who is authorised to drive a transport vehicle, to be given while returning the licence after effecting endorsement as to his authorisation as provided in R.11 of the Kerala Rules. This being the position, authorisation to drive a transport vehicle is one thing; while ‘badge’ supplied after effecting the endorsement of authorisation in the licence is another thing. As such, if the person concerned has not applied for and obtained a badge to be worn on his left chest, as prescribed by the rules does not do so, the absence of badge by itself cannot be said to be ‘fundamental breach’ and that it could only be ‘technical’. Under such circumstance, the Insurance Company cannot disown the liability or claim the right of recovery from the insured. But if there is no authorisation at all, enabling the driver to drive the transport vehicle, it is a fundamental lapse and under such circumstance, it is open for the Insurance Company to proceed with steps for recovery from the insured, who is violator of law. This is more so since, as observed by the Apex Court in Swaran Singh’s case (cited supra), insurance is also a contract and the provisions have to be strictly interpreted to give effect to the terms agreed between the insured and the insurer. 24. The statute/M.V. Act is of course a welfare legislation, which intends to extend benefit/welfare to the victims/third parties/claimants. A person who is committing any breach involving an offence under S.3(1) of the Act r/w S.181 of the M.V. Act is a person who is having no regard to the rule of law and as such, the provision is not intended to extend any benefit to such wrong-doer. It is settled law that, provision of law is not liable to be interpreted in favour of a ‘wrong-doer1.” 4. After the order of reference, the very same issue came up before the Apex Court in Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited ( AIR 2017 SC 3668 ). That was a case in which the question involved was whether a driver who is having a licence to drive light motor vehicle and is driving a transport vehicle of that class is required additionally to obtain an endorsement to drive a transport vehicle. That was a case in which the question involved was whether a driver who is having a licence to drive light motor vehicle and is driving a transport vehicle of that class is required additionally to obtain an endorsement to drive a transport vehicle. A three Judge Bench while considering the said matter observed that there is a conflict of decisions of the Apex Court itself and accordingly the following questions have been enumerated for decision in paragraph 2 of the judgment: “2. Following questions have been referred for decision to the larger Bench: 1. What is the meaning to be given to the definition of “light motor vehicle” as defined in S.2(21) of the M.V. Act? Whether transport vehicles are excluded from it? 2. Whether ‘transport vehicle’ and ‘omnibus’ the “gross vehicle weight” of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg. would be a “light motor vehicle” and also motor car or tractor or a road-roller, “unladen weight” of which does not exceed 7500 kg. and holder of licence to drive class of “light motor vehicle” as provided in S.10(2)(d) would be competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the “gross vehicle weight” of which does not exceed 7500 kg. or a motor car or tractor or road-roller, the “unladen weight” of which does not exceed 7500 kg.? 3. What is the effect of the amendment made by virtue of Act 54 of 1994 w.e.f. 14.11.1994 while substituting clauses (e) to (h) of S.10(2) which contained “medium goods vehicle”, “medium passenger motor vehicle”, “heavy goods vehicle” and “heavy passenger motor vehicle” by “transport vehicle”? Whether insertion of the expression “transport vehicle” under S.10(2)(e) is related to the said substituted classes only or it also excluded transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class from the purview of Sections 10(2)(d) and 2(41) of the Act? 4. What is the effect of amendment of Form 4 as to operation of the provisions contained in S.10 as amended in the year 1994 and whether procedure to obtain driving licence for transport vehicle of class of “light motor vehicle” has been changed? There is a conflict in the aforesaid decisions of this Court with respect to the legal position of the amendment made on 28.3.2001 in the Forms for driving licence. There is a conflict in the aforesaid decisions of this Court with respect to the legal position of the amendment made on 28.3.2001 in the Forms for driving licence. In order to answer the questions, it is necessary to consider the various provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 5. After considering the entire aspects involved in the matter and the case law, the Apex Court held at paragraph 46 as under: “46. Section 10 of the Act requires a driver to hold a licence with respect to the class of vehicles and not with respect to the type of vehicles. In one class of vehicles, there may be different kinds of vehicles. If they fall in the same class of vehicles, no separate endorsement is required to drive such vehicles. As light motor vehicle includes transport vehicle also, a holder of light motor vehicle licence can drive all the vehicles of the class including transport vehicles. It was pre-amended position as well the post-amended position of Form 4 as amended on 28.3.2001. Any other interpretation would be repugnant to the definition of “light motor vehicle” in S.2(21) and the provisions of S.10(2)(d), R.8 of the Rules of 1989, other provisions and also the forms which are in tune with the provisions. Even otherwise the forms never intended to exclude transport vehicles from the category of ‘light motor vehicles’ and for light motor vehicle, the validity period of such licence hold good and apply for the transport vehicle of such class also and the expression in S.10(2)(e) of the Act ‘Transport Vehicle’ would include medium goods vehicle, medium passenger motor vehicle, heavy goods vehicle, heavy passenger motor vehicle which earlier found place in S.10(2)(e) to (h) and our conclusion is fortified by the syllabus and rules which we have discussed. Thus we answer the questions which are referred to us thus : (i) ‘Light motor vehicle’ as defined in S.2(21) of the Act would include a transport vehicle as per the weight prescribed in S.2(21) read with S.2(15) and 2(48). Such transport vehicles are not excluded from the definition of the light motor vehicle by virtue of Amendment Act No. 54/1994. (ii) A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg. Such transport vehicles are not excluded from the definition of the light motor vehicle by virtue of Amendment Act No. 54/1994. (ii) A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg. would be a light motor vehicle and also motor car or tractor or a road roller, ‘unladen weight’ of which does not exceed 7500 kg. and holder of a driving licence to drive class of “light motor vehicle” as provided in S.10(2)(d) is competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg. or a motor car or tractor or road-roller, the “unladen weight” of which does not exceed 7500 kg. That is to say, no separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class as enumerated above. A licence issued under S.10(2)(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54/1994 and 28.3.2001 in the form. (iii) The effect of the amendment made by virtue of Act No.54/1994 w.e.f.14.11.1994 while substituting clauses (e) to (h) of S.10(2) which contained “medium goods vehicle” in S.10(2)(e), medium passenger motor vehicle in S.10(2)(f), heavy goods vehicle in S.10(2)(g) and “heavy passenger motor vehicle” in S.10(2)(h) with expression ‘transport vehicle’ as substituted in S.10(2)(e) related only to the aforesaid substituted classes only. It does not exclude transport vehicle, from the purview of S.10(2)(d) and S.2(41) of the Act i.e., light motor vehicle. (iv) The effect of amendment of Form 4 by insertion of “transport vehicle” is related only to the categories which were substituted in the year 1994 and the procedure to obtain driving licence for transport vehicle of class of “light motor vehicle” continues to be the same as it was and has not been changed and there is no requirement to obtain separate endorsement to drive transport vehicle, and if a driver is holding licence to drive light motor vehicle, he can drive transport vehicle of such class without any endorsement to that effect.” 6. While referring the matter, the Division Bench of this court had expressed a doubt as to whether the judgment of the Full Bench in Jisha K.P. (supra) can be applied when it comes to the question of authorisation to drive a transport vehicle. While referring the matter, the Division Bench of this court had expressed a doubt as to whether the judgment of the Full Bench in Jisha K.P. (supra) can be applied when it comes to the question of authorisation to drive a transport vehicle. In fact in Jisha (supra), taking into consideration the facts of the case, no such distinction was observed. 7. However, the Apex Court having evaluated the entire law on the subject in Mukund Dewangan (supra) has held that light motor vehicle as defined in S.2(21) of the Act would include a transport vehicle as per weight prescribed in S.2(21) read with Sections 2(15) and 2(48). It was further held that a transport vehicle and omnibus, gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg. would be a light motor vehicle and also a motor car or tractor or a road roller, ‘unladen weight’ of which does not exceed 7500 k.g. and holder of a driving licence to drive class of “light motor vehicle” as provided in S.10(2)(d) is competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 k.g. or a motor car or tractor or road roller, the “unladen weight” of which does not exceed 7500 k.g. Therefore no separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class. In the light of the pronouncement of the Apex Court as above, nothing further survives to be decided in the reference. The reference is answered in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court. Registry shall place the matter before the appropriate Court for being heard.