JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed against the impugned order in W.C.No.36 of 2006 dtd. 20/5/2007 on the file of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Visakhapatnam. Appellants herein were the applicants, Respondent Nos.1 and 2. are the opposite parties before the learned Commissioner. 2. Applicants are the dependents' of the deceased late Bheemavarapu Sathyanarayana who died in a motor vehicle accident on 7/1/2005, while discharging his duties as a driver to the auto of Opposite Party No.1. 3. The Opposite Party No.1/Owner of the vehicle was set exparte before the learned Commissioner. Opposite Party No.2 filed counter denying all the averments made in the petition interalia contending that applicants have to prove the existence of the employee - employer relationship between the deceased and Opposite Party No.1 and that they have to prove occurrence of accident out of and in the course of the employment, age, wage of the deceased. 4. During the course of the enquiry, Applicant No.1 who is the wife of the deceased was examined as A.W.1, Mr. Bala Raju who is the brother of the deceased was examined as A.W.2. 5. Opposite Party No.2 also filed additional counter stating that the deceased holds driving license for light motor vehicle (Non-Transport). The auto being passenger transport vehicle, he should have Service Badge or Transport endorsement which is mandatory. In support of their claim, Opposite Party No.2 examined its company Assistant Manager as R.W.1. One Animireddy Sanyasirao is examined as R.W.2, who is a Senior Assistant in R.T.O Office, Visakhapatnam. Exs.A-1 to A-5 and Exs.R-1 to R-4 are the documents marked on behalf of the respective parties. 6. On appreciation of the evidence on record and after hearing both the learned counsel, the learned Commissioner held that issue of employee -employer relationship and occurrence of the accident, during the course of the employment are proved by the applicants through their evidence coupled with F.I.R which is registered relating to the accident. Learned Commissioner also concluded about the age of the deceased as 25 years. Taking into consideration, the minimum wages for the worker who employed in public motor transport an amount of Rs.3, 26, 883.00 was awarded as compensation to the applicants. However, the liability was restricted on the owner by dismissing the claim against the Insurance Company. 7. Learned Commissioner also concluded about the age of the deceased as 25 years. Taking into consideration, the minimum wages for the worker who employed in public motor transport an amount of Rs.3, 26, 883.00 was awarded as compensation to the applicants. However, the liability was restricted on the owner by dismissing the claim against the Insurance Company. 7. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants and a bare perusal on the memorandum of the Appeal, it appears the substantial question of law raised is as follows: "Whether the Insurance Company can be exonerated from the liability on the ground that the deceased had no proper endorsement to his driving license to drive the light motor vehicle?" 8. Heard Sri Jayanti S. C. Sekhar, learned counsel for the appellants and Ms. A. Jayanti, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 9. A perusal of Sec. 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act makes it clear that the scope of Sec. 30 of the Act for entertaining the appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner is very limited and is restricted to those that are provided in the clauses (a) to (e). Further, it clearly provides that the award of compensation passed under the Workmen's Compensation Act can be challenged in the appeal only where substantial questions of law are involved. In Shahjahan and Another v. Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3133, Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated that the High Court ought not decide a Sec. 30 appeal as if it is a first Appellate Court on the questions of fact. 10. On a bare perusal of the impugned order, it is indicative that the learned Commissioner has given clear findings on the following points; a. The deceased was an employee of Opposite Party No.1 who is the owner of the vehicle. b. There exists employee - employer relationship between the deceased and Opposite Party No.1. c. The accident occurred out of and in the course of the employment. d. The age of the deceased as per the Postmortem Report and the driving license considered as 25 years. e. In absence of proof of wages, the minimum wages fixed by the Government for the driver of an auto which is a public motor transport i.e., Rs.3, 014.00 was considered. d. The age of the deceased as per the Postmortem Report and the driving license considered as 25 years. e. In absence of proof of wages, the minimum wages fixed by the Government for the driver of an auto which is a public motor transport i.e., Rs.3, 014.00 was considered. f. The deceased did not possess valid driving license at the time of the accident, the vehicle was a passenger AutoRickshaw for which badge is required. 11. Coming to the occurrence of the issue, Opposite Party No.2 has taken a specific contention that the deceased did not possess a valid driving license at the time of the accident. To prove the same, Insurance Company examined R.W.2. R.W.2 filed Ex.R-3 and R-4. R.W.2 testified that deceased did not possess transport endorsement to drive the passenger transport auto. On the other hand, the claimants filed the driving license of the deceased Ex.A-5. Admittedly, the deceased possessed a driving license to drive the light motor vehicle. 12. In Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2017) 14 Supreme Court Cases 663, wherein a question arose as to whether a driver who has a licence to drive a light motor vehicle and is driving a transport vehicle of that class is required to additionally obtain an endorsement to drive a transport vehicle. It is relevant to extract Para 60 which reads as follows: "60.1. "Light motor vehicle" as defined in Sec. 2(21) of the Act would include a transport vehicle as per the weight prescribed in Sec. 2(21) read with Ss. 2(15) and 2(48). Such transport vehicles are not excluded from the definition of the light motor vehicle by virtue of Amendment Act 54 of 1994. 60.2. 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 roadroller, "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 Sec. 10(2)(d) is competent to drive a transport vehicle omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg or a motor car or tractor or roadroller, 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 Sec. 10(2)(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54 of 1994 and 28/3/2001 in the form. 60.3. 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 Sec. 10(2) which contained "medium goods vehicle" in Sec. 10(2)(e), "medium passenger motor vehicle" in Sec. 10(2)(f), "heavy good vehicle" in Sec. 10(2)(g) and "heavy passenger motor vehicle" in Sec. 10(2)(h) with expression "transport vehicle" as substituted in Sec. 10(2)(e) related only to the aforesaid substituted classes only. It does not exclude transport vehicle, from the purview of Sec. 10(2)(d) and Sec. 2(41) of the Act i.e., light motor vehicle. 60.4. 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." Emphasis supplied 13. In M.S.Bhati v. National Insurance Company Limited, (2019) 12 SCC 248 , a two-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the position laid down in Mukund Dewangan supra and held as follows; "10. The learned counsel further submitted on the alternative plea that the decision in Mukund Dewangan [Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2017) 14 SCC 663 ] has been reserved for reconsideration by a larger Bench in Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi [Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi, (2019) 12 SCC 816 ] by a two-Judge Bench of this Court on 3/5/2018. 11. The law which has been laid down by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Mukund Dewangan [Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2017) 14 SCC 663 ] binds this Court. As a matter of judicial discipline, we are duty-bound to follow that decision which continues to hold the field." Emphasis supplied 14. 11. The law which has been laid down by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Mukund Dewangan [Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2017) 14 SCC 663 ] binds this Court. As a matter of judicial discipline, we are duty-bound to follow that decision which continues to hold the field." Emphasis supplied 14. In this light, till a decision in the reference is taken, the law laid down in Mukund Dewangan supra holds good. 15. It is also relevant to extract para 19 of decision rendered by Karnataka High Court in M/s United India Insurance Company Limited v. Sri Lakshmipathi @ Krishna, M.F.A.No.463 of 2013, dtd. 7/6/2022, which reads as follows; "19. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mukund Dewangan's case (supra) after considering effect of amendment to provisions of M.V. Act under Amending Act No.54 of 1994, has held that wherein, any person having licence to drive 'light motor vehicle' would be competent to drive transport or goods vehicle with gross vehicle weight of less than 7500 Kgs., without possessing driver's badge or transport endorsement on driving licence. Driving Licences issued under provisions of M.V. Act can be questioned for their validity in context of provisions of enactment under which they are issued. Validity cannot be decided in context of claim being under W.C. Act. However, provisions of said Act would hold field insofar as liability is concerned as observed in Beli Ram (supra). Admittedly, workman herein was having valid driving licence to drive 'light motor vehicle' as on date of accident and gross vehicle weight of insured vehicle was 1550 Kgs. Therefore, Commissioner was fully justified in holding insurer liable to pay compensation." Emphasis supplied 16. There is no dispute about the fact that the vehicle involved in the present case is an auto. It is also not in dispute the unladed weight of the auto in the present context is below 7, 500 Kg. Such being the case, the driving license of the deceased itself is valid to drive the said auto. The transport endorsement is not required. There cannot be any difference in skill for the driver to possess the badge and who did not such transport endorsement. 17. Such being the case, the driving license of the deceased itself is valid to drive the said auto. The transport endorsement is not required. There cannot be any difference in skill for the driver to possess the badge and who did not such transport endorsement. 17. In a similar type of case, a Coordinate Bench of the High Court for the State of Telangana in case of New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Smt. N. Anjilamma and 5 others, (2021) SCC Online TS 1394, held as follows: "13. A perusal of the judgment in Swaran Singh's case (1 supra), it would disclose that the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the breach of policy condition e.g., disqualification of driver or invalid driving licence of the driver, as contained in sub-sec. (2)(a)(ii) of Sec. 149, have to be proved to have been committed by the insured for avoiding liability by the insurer. Mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties. To avoid its liability towards insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time. The insurance companies are, however, with a view to avoid their liability must not only establish the available defence(s) raised in the said proceedings but must also establish 'breach' on the part of the owner of the vehicle; the burden of proof where for would be on them. The court cannot lay down any criteria as to how the said burden would be discharged, inasmuch as the same would depend upon the facts and circumstance of each case. Even where the insurer is able to prove breach on the part of the insured concerning the policy condition regarding holding of a valid licence by the driver or his qualification to drive during the relevant period, the insurer would not be allowed to avoid its liability towards insured unless the said breach or breaches on the condition of driving licence is/are so fundamental as are found to have contributed to the cause of the accident. The Tribunals in interpreting the policy conditions would apply "the rule of main purpose" and the concept of "fundamental breach" to allow defences available to the insured under Sec. 149(2) of the Act. 14. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the said judgment is not applicable to the Workmen's Compensation Act is not considered valid. Though it was given under the Motor Vehicles Act, it is equally applicable to the Workmen's Compensation Act. The Insurer could not avoid his liability towards the insured unless he proves that the breach was so fundamental to have contributed to the cause of the accident. The deceased was not driving the vehicle at the time of the accident, but was crossing the road to attend the nature call by stopping his lorry. As such, the policy conditions regarding driver not holding driving licence at the time of accident cannot be considered as fundamental breach that had contributed to the cause of the accident, so as to discharge the appellant from the liability. The above judgment also discloses that the absence of the driving licence cannot be a reason to deny the compensation when there was a valid insurance policy. As such, it is considered that the Commissioner had not committed any error in passing the award holding the Opposite Parties jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the applicants. The order of the Commissioner was not contrary to law or probabilities of the case and was not liable to be set aside. Hence, I do not find any merits in the appeal and therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed." Emphasis supplied 18. In the light of the legal position referred supra, in the present case, the deceased driver possessed a valid driving license since the unladen weight of the vehicle is below 7, 500 Kg's. Be that as it may, the alleged breach of the conditions of the policy relating to the transport endorsement to the driving license of the deceased is not a fundamental breach. For the above reasons, this Court is of the view that the impugned order warrants interference of this Court in this appeal. 19. For the above reasons, this Court is of the view that the impugned order warrants interference of this Court in this appeal. 19. In result, appeal is allowed modifying the impugned order of the learned Commissioner to the extent of dismissing the claim and it is ordered that Insurance Company is also jointly and severally liable to pay compensation along with the owner to the applicants. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.