JUDGMENT : P.G.M. Patil, J. The Insurance Company being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 31.05.2010, passed in MVC No.1198/2008, by the MACT-IX, Bellari, has filed this appeal. 2. The status of the parties is referred as per their ranking before the tribunal. The respondent No.3 insurance company before the tribunal is the appellant herein. The claimant/petitioner before the tribunal is respondent No.1 herein and the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, respondents No.1 and 2 respectively before the tribunal are the respondents No.2 and 3 in this appeal. 3. It is the case of the claimant before the tribunal that on 18.06.2008 at about 11.30 a.m. while petitioner was proceeding on the motor cycle bearing registration No. AP-02/J8620 along with his son Palaiah towards Rayadruga at Mulakalmuru Check post respondent No.1 being the driver of the TATA ACE (luggage auto) bearing Reg.No.K.A.35/A- 2343, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and in a high speed and dashed against the motor cycle as a result petitioner sustained fracture injuries to his left knee, head and other parts of the body. He was taken to Government Health Centre Rayadurga thereafter to Community Health Centre, Rayadurga thereafter shifted to VIMS hospital, Bellary. Thereafter, he took treatment in Bapuji hospital, Davanagere and he has incurred heavy medical expenses. Since respondent No.1 being the driver of the Auto Rickshaw which was belongs to respondent No.2, and the said vehicle was duly insured with the respondent No.3 Insurance Company, all the respondents are liable to pay compensation. 4. In pursuance of the notice, the respondents No.1 appeared before the tribunal and respondents No.2(a) and (b) remained ex-parte and respondent No.3 also appeared before the Court and filed the written statement. Respondent No.3 has denied that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving by respondent No.1 driver of the TATA ACE bearing registration No.KA-35/A-2343 and that the petitioner had sustained grievous injuries. He has also denied the age, occupation and income of the petitioner. Accident was due to rash and negligent driving by the petitioner himself being the rider of the motor cycle. The driver of TATA ACE was not having valid and effective driving licence. As there is violation of policy condition Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the tribunal framed issues. The driver of TATA ACE was not having valid and effective driving licence. As there is violation of policy condition Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the tribunal framed issues. In support of his claim petition, the claimant has got examined himself as PW.1 and one witness as PW.2 and got marked 54 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.54. Per contra, the respondent No.3 Insurance Company got examined its witness as RW.1 and got marked 3 documents as Exs.R.1 to R.3. The tribunal after hearing both the parties, passed the judgment, awarding compensation of Rs.2,32,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. Respondent No.3 being the Insurance Company was directed to deposit the entire compensation amount. 6. The insurer being aggrieved by the said judgment has filed this appeal on the grounds that the Tribunal erred in saddling liability on the appellant though it is proved that driver of the offending vehicle had no valid driving licence and thereby there is breach of policy conditions and further that there is violation of permit conditions and amounts to breach of policy conditions. 7. Heard the arguments of the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 8. The short question which arises for consideration in this appeal is, whether the appellant insurer has made out ground to set aside the liability held against him. 9. The first contention urged by the learned counsel for the appellant insurance company is that in spite of violation of policy condition the tribunal has erroneously come to the conclusion that the appellant herein has to indemnify the award amount. But, now this ground is not available to the appellant insurer in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Mukund Dewangan V. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2017) AIR SC 3668. Admittedly in the present case, valid driving license for driving LMV NT vehicle is there. The vehicle involved in the accident is LMV transport vehicle. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated supra there is no requirement for obtaining special endorsement by the driver holding valid driving license for driving LMV NT, for driving LMV Transport vehicle and as such, the first contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is liable to be rejected. 10. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated supra there is no requirement for obtaining special endorsement by the driver holding valid driving license for driving LMV NT, for driving LMV Transport vehicle and as such, the first contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is liable to be rejected. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that there is violation of permit conditions as the permit issued in respect of offending vehicle is only to ply the vehicle in the State of Karnataka and that the accident in question occurred in the State of Andra Pradesh, thereby the permit conditions are violated. Consequently, the policy conditions are also violated and as such, the insurer is not liable to pay the compensation. 11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimant submitted that in view of Section 66(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the vehicle involved in the present case is exempted from obtaining permit. Since the weight of the vehicle is 1550 kgs as per Ex.R.3 registration permit. Therefore, as per the provision of Section 66(3) (i) the proviso of sub Section (i) shall not be applicable and as such this ground urged on behalf of the appellant insurer is also liable to be rejected. 12. Under these circumstances, this Court holds that the insurer failed to make out any grounds for setting aside the liability against him. Hence, point for consideration is answered accordingly. In the result, this Court proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal filed by the appellant-Insurance Company is hereby dismissed. The amount deposited by the appellant Insurance Company shall be transmitted to the concerned tribunal forthwith. The appellant-Insurance Company is directed to deposit remaining amount of compensation within a period of eight weeks before the tribunal.