Ramachandran Nair, J.

1. These appeals have been referred to the Full Bench to examine the following question:

“Whether the absence of a badge by the driver of a transport vehicle is sufficient to exonerate the insurance company from liability to pay compensation to the claimant or at least whether the insurance company is entitled to the right to recover the compensation paid by them to the claimant from the owner?

M.A.C.A. No.1653/2010 is filed by the insurance company and M.A.C.A. No.2640/2010 is filed by the claimant.

2. The accident in this case occurred on 3.12.2005 at about 2.15 p.m. and it involves two vehicles. The deceased was travelling in a lorry bearing registration No.KL 01X 9354 from Town AR Camp to Malappuram SP Camp for bringing barricades. At a place called Siyamkandam, Pulikkal the vehicle stopped for bringing water and the deceased got down from the lorry. Then the offending vehicle, viz. ambassador car bearing Reg. No.KL 13/J 1950 came recklessly from Malappuram side and hit against the deceased, thus causing grievous injuries to him. He succumbed to the injuries later. The insurance company contended that the first respondent driver had no badge to drive the transport vehicle and it amounts to violation of the policy conditions. The Tribunal rejected the contentions and directed the insurance company to pay the amount awarded in full.

3. Before the Division Bench, learned counsel for the owner relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in S. Iyyappan v. M/s. United India Insurance Company Ltd. And another (2013 (3) KLJ 306). Learned counsel also relied upon another judgment of a Division Bench of this Court M.A.C.A. No.105/2012 holding the view that the absence of a badge is not a violation of the policy condition enabling the insurance company to recover the amount from the owner and driver. Another decision of a learned Single Judge in Kuruvila v. Jijo Joseph (2013 (4) KLT 700) was also relied upon.

4. In the reference order, the Bench noted that the said Bench, in M.A.C.A. No.1676/2010, gave right to the insurance company to recover the amount paid by it to the claimant on the ground that the absence of badge is a violation of the policy conditions. After observing that there is considerable merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the owner, in relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in S. Iyyappan's case (2013 (3) KLJ 306), the cases were referred to the Full Bench for consideration.

5. We heard learned counsel for the insurance company, Shri Lal George, Shri R.Sudhish and Smt. Manju M., learned counsel for the claimant and Shri Sunil Nair Palakkat, learned counsel for the owner.

6. Shri Lal George mainly contended that there should be effective licence for a driver, going by Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the 'Act” for short) to drive a vehicle. Learned counsel invited our attention to the definition of “driving licence” in Section 2(10) and the other definition clauses including “private service vehicle” (Section 2(33)), “public service vehicle” (Section 2(35)), “goods carriage” (Section 2(14)) and “transport vehicle” (Section 2(47) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is submitted that in the light of the provision under Section 3 of the Act, any person driving a transport vehicle should have proper authorisation and herein, the absence of a badge therefore will be a violation of the conditions of the policy under Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the Act. Elaborating his contentions, it is submitted by relying upon various decisions of the Apex Court that under different circumstances the Apex Court has examined various legal aspects coming under the above provision which also support the case of the insurance company.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the owner Shri Sunil Nair submitted that the rules framed as regards issuance of licence are in tune with the power conferred on the Central Government under Section 27 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. With respect to issuan