V.K. Bali, J.
1. This appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 has been filed challenging the order dated 18.10.2003 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in C.M.A. No. 1121/99, confirming the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 20.4.1999. The Tribunal in a matter pertaining to claim with regard to an accident determined compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- but fastened the liability to pay the same to the owner of the offending vehicle. This constrained the appellant to file an appeal which has since been dismissed by the learned Single Judge.
2. The only question that needs to be determined in the present appeal is as to whether the owner of the vehicle should pay compensation or the same shall be payable by the Oriental Insurance company Limited, arrayed as respondent No. 4 in the present appeal.
3. The question, as framed above, emanates from the admitted fact that driver of the vehicle belonging to the appellant, did possess licence for driving light motor vehicle but was driving a mini bus, a transport vehicle, which concededly as well, is a light motor vehicle as defined under Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. There is no need to give further facts of the case in view of the limited controversy between the parties as mentioned above.
4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and with their assistance examined the records of the case.
5. The matter appears to us to be no more res Integra being covered by recent decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Swaran Singh and Ors., A.C.J. 2004(1) 1 : RLW 2004(2) SC 161, which has been recently followed by a Full Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Praveen Kumar and Ors., . The relevant part of the observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court read as follows:-
' (81) Section 10 of the Act provides for forms and contents of licences to drive. The licence has to be granted in the prescribed form. Thus, a licence to drive a light motor vehicle would entitle the holder to drive the vehicle falling within that class or description.
(82) Section 3 of the Act casts an obligation on a driver to hold an effective driving licence for the type of vehicle which he intends to drive. Section 10 of the Act enables Central Government to prescribe the forms of driving licences for various categories of vehicles mentioned in sub-section (2) of said section. The various types of vehicles described for which a driver may obtain a licence for one or more of them are (1) motor cycle without gear; (b) motor cycle with gear; (c) invalid carriage; (d) light motor vehicle; (e) transport vehicle; (f)road roller; and (g) motor vehicle of other specified description. The definition clause in Section 2 of the Act defines various categories of vehicles which are covered in Section 10. They are 'good carriage'; 'heavy goods vehicle', 'invalid carriage', 'light motor vehicle', 'maxi-cab', 'medium goods vehicle', 'medium passenger motor vehicle', 'motorcab', 'motor vehicle', 'semi-trailer', 'tourist vehicle'. In claims for compensation for accidents, various kinds of breaches with regard to the conditions of driving licences arise for consideration before the Tribunal. A person possessing a driving licence for 'motor cycle without gear', for which he has no licence. Cases may also arise where holder of driving licence for 'light motor vehicle' is found to be driving a 'maxicab', 'motorcab', or 'omnibus' for which he has no licence. In each case on evidence led before the Claims Tribunal, a decision has to be taken whether the fact of the driver possessing licence for one type of vehicle, was the main or contributory cause of accident. If on facts, it is found that the accident was caused solely because of some other unforeseen or intervening causes like mechanical failures arid similar other causes having no nexus with driver not possessing requisite type of licence, the insurer will not be allowed to avoid its liability merely for technical breach of conditions concerning driving licence.'
6. While taking into consideration the decision of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and Ors. (supra), the Full Bench o Punjab and Haryana High Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Praveen Kumar and Ors. (supra), observed as follows:-
'The issue being no more res Integra, needs no further elaboration. We may, however, hasten to add that the insurance company cannot be absolved of its liability to pay the compensation by simply pleading that the licence granted to the driver being for one class or description of vehicle but the vehicle involved in the accident was of the different class or description, unless it is proved that the cause of accident was the licence granted to the driver being for one class or description of vehicle but the vehicle involved in the accident was of different class or description. The observations made by the Supreme Court presuppose that if the driver was driving a vehicle, of which he might not be holding licence as such but was holding a driving licence of a different description of vehicle and the driving method of both the vehicles, for which licence was obtained and the one which was being driven, was the same and when even the mechanism of the vehicle is also same, the defence projected by the insurance company with regard to the driver not possessing requisite type of licence could be, of no avail to it.'
7. The Full Bench further observed as follows:-
'We thus overrule the view taken by the Division Bench in National Insurance co. Ltd. v. Shinder Kaur, and hold that if on facts, it is found that accident was caused solely because of some other unforeseen or intervening causes like mechanical failures and similar other causes having no nexus with driver not possessing requisite type of licence, the insurer will not be allowed to avoid its liability merely for technical breach of conditions concerning driving licence. The defence projected by the insurance company in the context of Section 149(2)(a)(ii) and proviso appended to sub-sections (4) and (5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can succeed only if it is proved that the accident had taken place only because the driver not possessing requisite type of licence.'
8. Following dictum of Hon'ble Supreme court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Swaran Singh and Ors. (supra) and while respectfully agreeing with the Judgment of Full Bench in National Insurance Company Limited v. Praveen Kumar and Ors. (supra), we set-aside the orders passed by the learned Tribunal dated 20.4.1999, as confirmed by the learned Single Judge dated 18.10.2002 and allow this appeal. The amount of compensation as assessed by the learned Tribunal shall now be paid by the National Insurance Company Limited - respondent No. herein. There will be no order as to costs in view of fluctuating fate of parties.