JUDGMENT : Sabina, J. 1. Appellant has filed this appeal challenging the award dated 07.03.2017 passed by the Motor Vehicles Accident Tribunal, whereby, claim petition filed by the respondents No. 2 and 3 was allowed. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the driver of the vehicle was having a valid driving license to drive light motor vehicle. Hence, the driver of offending vehicle was authorized to drive motorcycle. 3. Claimants had filed claim petition seeking compensation on account of death of Brijesh in the motor vehicle accident, which had occurred on 24.11.2014. Vide award dated 17.04.2006, claim petition filed by the claimants was allowed. 4. Appellant filed S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2959/2006 in this Court and the appeal was partly allowed and the finding of the Tribunal, whereby, Insurance Company was exonerated from its liability to indemnify the insurer was set-aside and the Tribunal was directed to decide the said question afresh. 5. Tribunal vide impugned award dated 07.03.2017 has again exonerated the insurance company to indemnify the appellant. Hence, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant. 6. Learned Tribunal while exonerating the insurance company from its liability to indemnify the insurer/appellant has considered the fact that the driver of the offending vehicle was having a valid driving license authorizing him to drive vehicle of 'Light Motor Vehicle category'. However, there was no endorsement on the driving license of the driver of the offending vehicle that he was also authorized to drive 'motorcycle'. 7. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Zaharulnisha and Others reported in (2008) 12 SCC 385 reads as under:- 21. "In the light of the above-settled proposition of law, the appellant insurance company cannot be held liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants for the cause of death of Shukurullah in road accident which had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of scooter by Ram Surat who admittedly had no valid and effective licence to drive the vehicle on the day of accident. The scooterist was possessing driving licence of driving HMV and he was driving totally different class of vehicle which act of his is in violation of Section 10(2) of the MV Act. 8. The scooterist was possessing driving licence of driving HMV and he was driving totally different class of vehicle which act of his is in violation of Section 10(2) of the MV Act. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, learned Tribunal has thus rightly exonerated the insurance company from its liability to indemnify the insurer. Dismissed.