JUDGMENT 1. Challenging judgment and award dtd. 6/7/2017 passed by II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Kalaburagi (for short, 'tribunal') in MVC no.885/2013, this appeal is filed. 2. Shri Subhash Mallapur, learned counsel for appellant-insurer submitted that appeal was by insurer challenging award only insofar as finding on liability of insurer to pay compensation. And therefore, occurrence of accident involving of insured vehicle, respondent-claimant sustaining injuries in said accident due to rash and negligent driving of insured vehicle and coverage of insurance policy as on date of accident were not in dispute. 3. It was submitted that as on date of accident i.e. 12/12/2012, driver of insured vehicle was possessing driving licence to drive light motor vehicle but was driving auto-rickshaw without transport endorsement, that too without valid permit. Hence violating terms and conditions of policy. Therefore, tribunal was not justified in passing impugned award against insurer. 4. On other hand, though respondents served with notice, none appeared. 5. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned judgment and award. 6. From above submission and since only insurer is in appeal challenging finding of tribunal about liability of insurer to pay compensation, point that would arise for consideration is: "Whether tribunal was justified in holding insurer liable to pay compensation?" 7. On perusal of impugned judgment, it is seen that accident occurred on 12/12/2012. Indeed Ex.P.14 - driving licence extract produced by claimant before tribunal would indicate that driver of insured vehicle was having driving licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle, but was driving transport vehicle, without transport endorsement on his driving licence. But in view of authoritative pronouncement by Hon 'ble Supreme Court in Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, 2017 (14) SCC 663 , said contention would not stand to scrutiny and requires rejection. 8. Even other contention that there was no valid permit issued for plying insured vehicle as on date of accident, would be covered by Division Bench decision of this Court in case of Abdul Rouf v/s Megharaj Mhedole and others (MFA no.201648/2015 C/m, D.D. 26/11/2020), wherein it is held that plying vehicle without permit condition would be punishable offence under Sec. 192A of Motor Vehicles Act but not a ground for insurer to absolve from its liability. 9. Therefore, there is no merit in contentions of insurer in its appeal. Point for consideration is answered in negative. 10. Consequently, appeal is dismissed. 9. Therefore, there is no merit in contentions of insurer in its appeal. Point for consideration is answered in negative. 10. Consequently, appeal is dismissed. Amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted to Tribunal forthwith. Registry is directed to draw decree and transmit Trial Court records to tribunal, forthwith.