P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.

1. Does the law declared by a Full Bench of this Court in Augustine v. Ayyappankutty (1015 (2) KLT 139 (F.B.)) stand correct, in declaring that absence of 'Permit or 'Fitness Certificate' to the transport vehicle is only a 'technical breach' and not a 'fundamental breach', in so far as it stands contrary to the law declared by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company v. Challa Bharathamma (2004 (3) KLT 454 (SC)) (name of the case has been subsequently corrected as per the Official Corrigendum No. F. 3/Ed.BJ./96/2004 dated 01.12.2004 as National Insurance Company v. Challa Upendra Rao ((2004) 8 SCC 517)), For having not made even a reference to the decision of the Apex Court, is not above verdict liable to be declared as 'per incuriam'. Has the Full Bench considered all the relevant provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1998, as to the necessity for having a 'Fitness Certificate' to the vehicle (in view of the public safety), the necessity to have valid 'Permit', necessity to have 'Certificate of Registration' to ply a vehicle and deemed absence of registration if the vehicle is not having a valid permit/fitness certificate as envisaged under S.