JUDGMENT K. Natarajan, J. - This appeal is preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company assailing the judgment and award passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Madikeri, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in M.V.C. No.54 of 2010 dated 4-5-2012. 2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondent No.1. Respondent No.3 is served and unrepresented. 3. The status of the parties before the Tribunal is retained for the sake of convenience. 4. The case of the claimant (respondent No.1 herein) before the Tribunal is that he filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (hereinafter referred to as 'the M.V. Act') claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the injuries suffered by him in a road traffic accident inter alia contending that, on 11-6-2009 at about 7:10 p.m., when he was proceeding in his motorbike, bearing Registration No.KA-12 H-8187, near Usha Jewellery Shop at Mahadevpet, Madikere, at that time, respondent No.1-driver of the auto-rickshaw, bearing Registration No.KA-12-6700, drove the auto-rickshaw in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorbike, due to which, the claimant sustained injuries and was treated as in-patient in the Hospital. Hence, he prayed for claiming compensation under various heads. 5. In pursuance to the notice, respondent No.1- driver of the auto-rickshaw filed written objections by denying the averments made in the claim petition as false and contended that the accident occurred due to negligence of the claimant, who was rider of the motorbike, as he stopped the motorbike all of sudden. There was a contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motorbike. Therefore, the liability can be fastened only to 50% on the driver of the auto5 rickshaw. Hence, prayed for dismissing the claim petition. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company filed objections by denying the averments made in the claim petition as false and also contended that the owner of the auto-rickshaw, who is a policy holder, was not made as a party and hence, the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, the claim is exorbitant and hence, prayed for dismissing the claim petition. Respondent No.4-Owner of the auto-rickshaw also filed objections and contended that motorbike was insured with respondent No.3 and had valid insurance policy at the time of the accident. Respondent No.4-Owner of the auto-rickshaw also filed objections and contended that motorbike was insured with respondent No.3 and had valid insurance policy at the time of the accident. Further, he has contended that the accident occurred due to negligent driving of the driver of the auto-rickshaw and prayed for dismissing the claim petition. Respondent No.5-Policy Holder of the autorickshaw was impleaded subsequently. She appeared before the Tribunal, but has not filed any objections to the claim petition. 6. Based upon the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. "Whether the petitioner proves that, on 11-06-2009 at about 7.30 p.m., at Mahadevpet, Madikeri, the respondent No.1 being the driver of Autorickshaw bearing No.KA-12-6700 drove the same in rash and negligent manner and dashed against motor cycle bearing No.KA-12-H- 8187 which was driven by the petitioner, and he sustained injuries? 2. Whether petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom? 3. What order or award?" 7. In order to substantiate the contentions, the claimant examined himself as P.W.1, examined another witness as P.W.2, got marked 59 documents and also examined the Doctor as C.W.1 through Court Commissioner and also got marked 7 documents. The appellant-Insurance Company examined its official as R.W.1 and got marked 4 documents. After conclusion of the evidence and based upon the material, the Tribunal answered issue Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative and partly allowed the petition by awarding compensation of Rs.98,496/- payable by respondent Nos.1, 2 and 5, the driver, the insurer and the policy holder of the auto-rickshaw respectively. Claim petition against respondent Nos.3 and 4 is dismissed. Assailing the same, respondent No.2-Insurance Company preferred this appeal. 8. Sri C.R. Ravishankar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company, has contended that the judgment of the Tribunal saddling the liability on the Insurance Company is not correct since the driver of the auto-rickshaw was not having a valid and effective driving licence and he was holding licence only for driving the non-transport vehicle. Respondent No.1 drove the auto-rickshaw which is a transport vehicle, therefore, there was breach of condition of the insurance policy by respondent No.5- Policy Holder for having allowed the person, to drive the transport vehicle, who does not possess a valid and effecting Driving Licence. Therefore, the question of fixing the liability on the Insurance Company does not arise. Respondent No.1 drove the auto-rickshaw which is a transport vehicle, therefore, there was breach of condition of the insurance policy by respondent No.5- Policy Holder for having allowed the person, to drive the transport vehicle, who does not possess a valid and effecting Driving Licence. Therefore, the question of fixing the liability on the Insurance Company does not arise. The liability has to be fastened on the owner of the vehicle. Hence, prayed for allowing the appeal. 9. Per contra, Sri B.S. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, has contended that the auto-rickshaw was shown as non-transport vehicle in the Driving Licence issued by the Regional Transport Office. Even otherwise, if there is no badge to drive the transport vehicle by a person holding the Driving Licence with non-transport endorsement, he is not prohibited in driving the transport vehicle and he is very much eligible to drive the transport vehicle without having any badge as per the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MUKUND DEWANGAN v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, (2017) AIR SC 3668 . Hence, prayed for dismissing the appeal. 10. Upon hearing the arguments and on perusal of the record, it goes to show that the accident in question was occurred on 11-6-2009 when the claimant was proceeding in his motorbike, respondent No.1-driver of the auto-rickshaw came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorbike, due to which, the claimant sustained grievous injuries. Based upon the complaint, the Police registered a criminal case against the driver of the auto-rickshaw and filed charge-sheet. Exs.P.1 to 5, Ex.P.7, Ex.P.8, Ex.P9 and Ex.P.10 are the Police record. Based upon the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has rightly held that accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the autorickshaw. Insurer has also not seriously disputed the accident in question. The main ground is in respect of fastening the liability on the insurer in view of holding a non-transport Driving License by respondent No.1 and driven the transport vehicle, thereby there is violation of the condition of the Policy. On perusal of Ex.R.4-Driving Licence of the driver of the autorickshaw shows that Driving Licence was valid from 17-1-1998 to 16-1-2018 and it was issued to drive the auto-rickshaw non-transport vehicle. On perusal of Ex.R.4-Driving Licence of the driver of the autorickshaw shows that Driving Licence was valid from 17-1-1998 to 16-1-2018 and it was issued to drive the auto-rickshaw non-transport vehicle. On perusal of Ex.R.3-Insurance Policy refers that policy was issued to Bajaj auto-rickshaw having seating capacity of three and has not stated whether it is for a transport or nontransport vehicle. However, in view of the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra), the endorsement of transport vehicle is not required in view of the amendment to Section 10(2)(e) of the M.V. Act. The relevant portion of the said judgment is as under: "xxx xxx xxx 46 (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." 11. In view of the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra), respondent No.1-driver of the auto13 rickshaw is not required any separate endorsement for driving the transport vehicle, i.e. auto-rickshaw in the present case. Therefore, the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed . The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the Tribunal.