A.M. Shaffique, J.

By reference order dated 9.11.2015, a Division Bench of this Court had doubted the judgment of a Full Bench of this Court in National Insurance Company Ltd v. Jisha K.P. & Ors. (2015 (1) KLT 1 (F.B.)) on certain points. The Full Bench while deciding the above case considered the point, whether the absence of a badge by the driver of a transport vehicle is sufficient to exonerate the Insurance Company from the liability to pay compensation to the claimant or whether an Insurance Company is entitled to recover the compensation paid by them to the claimant from the owner. It was held that the Insurance Company will have to prove that absence of a badge was a fundamental breach which has contributed to the cause of accident. While coming to such a finding it was held that when the driver was holding a valid licence to drive a light motor vehicle, merely because he did not get any endorsement in the driving licence to drive a commercial vehicle, the insurer will still be liable to pay compensation.

2. In the reference order (Shaji v. Pradeesh reported in 2016 (1) KLT 1) the Division Bench, while affirming the view, posed a question at para 17 as under :

“17. Now comes to the question as to the absence of ‘badge’. If it were mere absence of badge, it could only be technical, which would confer no right of recovery upon the insurer, as held by the Full Bench of this Court in 2015 (1) KLT 1 (F.B.) (cited supra). But if it is an absence of specific authorisation to drive a ‘transport vehicle’ (which can be acquired only after obtaining one year’s experience as stipulated under S.7 of the Act), the position may be different.”

3. Proceeding further it was held at paras 23 and 24 as under:

“23. It is also relevant from the rules quoted above that, on obtaining authorisation to drive transport vehicle, the person concerned shall be given a metallic badge showing him as a driver as contemplated therein. In other words, a ‘badge’ is a material object given to the party, who is authorised to drive a transport vehicle, to be given while returning the licence after effecting endorsement as to his authorisation as provided in R.11 of the Kerala Rules. This being the position, authorisation to drive a transport vehicle is one thing; while ‘badge’ supplied after effecting the endorsement of authorisation in the licence is another thing. As such, if the person concerned has not applied for and obtained a badge to be worn on his left chest, as prescribed by the rules does not do so, the absence of badge by itself cannot be said to be ‘fundamental breach’ and that it could only be ‘technical’. Under such circumstance, the Insurance Company cannot disown the liability or claim the right of recovery from the insured. But if there is no authorisation at all, enabling the driver to drive the transport vehicle, it is a fundamental lapse and under such circumstance, it is open for the Insurance Company to proceed with steps for recovery from the insured, who is violator of law. This is more so since, as observed by the Apex Court in Swaran Singh’s case (cited supra), insurance is also a contract and the provisions have to be strictly interpreted to give effect to the terms agreed between the insured and the insurer.

24. The statute/M.V. Act is of course a welfare legislation, which intends to extend benefit/welfare to the victims/third parties/claimants. A person who is committing any breach involving an offence under S.3(1) of the Act r/w S.181 of the M.V. Act is a person who is having no regard to the rule of law and as such, the provision is not intended to extend any benefit to such wrong-doer. It is settled law that, provision of law is not liable to be interpreted in favour of a ‘wrong-doer1.”

4. After the order of reference, the very same issue came up before the Apex Court in Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (AIR 2017 SC 3668). That was a case in which the question involved was whether a driver who is having