SAMPATH, J.

(1) THE insurance company is the appellant. The appeal has been filed against the award passed by the Motor accidents Claims Tribunal, Padmanabhapuram in M. C. O. P. No. 9 of 1989 on 31. 3. 1993 against the appellant insurance company.

(2) IN an accident involving an autorickshaw belonging to the respondent No. 2 in the appeal and insured with the appellant herein, the respondent No. 1 was injured and he made a claim for Rs. 60,000 as compensation. The respondent No. 3 was the driver of the autorickshaw.

(3) THE only question arising for consideration in the present appeal is as to whether the insurance company can be made liable for payment of the compensation inasmuch as the driver did not have a valid endorsement for driving the autorickshaw.

(4) ADMITTEDLY the driver though held a licence for driving a light motor vehicle did not have an endorsement for driving an autorickshaw. The Tribunal found that the autorickshaw is only a light motor vehicle and the licence to drive the light motor vehicle would also cover the case and the insurance company is, therefore, liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle.

(5) 5. Mrs. Kala Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant relied on the following decisions in support of her contention: (1) Dhanaraj v. Rubia, 1992 ACJ 84 (Madras); (2) E. Enjanadevi v, Arumugham, 1983 ACJ 625 (Madras) and (3)united India Insurance Co, Ltd. v, K. Subramaniam, 1991 ACJ 625 (Madras ).

(6) MR. N. Paulvasanthakumar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1-claimant submitted that the conclusion reached by the Tribunal fastening the liability on the insurance company is perfectly in order and the same is in conformity with the decisions of this court, other High Courts and the Apex Court. The decisions relied on by the learned counsel are: (1) Srinivasa Roadways, Madurai v. Saroja, 1975 ACJ 265 (Madras); (2)madras Motor and Genl. Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Madathiammal, AIR 1975 Mad 250; (3)b. V. Nagaraju v. Oriental Insurance co. Ltd. , 1996 ACJ 1178 (SC); (4)ashok Gangadhar Maratha v. Oriental insurance Co. Ltd. , 2000 ACJ 319 (SC); (5) National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Maisy Alex, 2000 ACJ 1403 (Madras ).

(7) RELYING on the Srinivasa Roadways, Madurai v. Saroja, 1975 ACJ 265 (Madras) and Madras Motor and Genl. Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Madathiammal, AIR 1975 Mad 250, Mr. Paulvasanthakumar submitted that the driver had a valid licence to drive light motor vehicle, that he was not disqualified for holding or obtaining the driving licence at the time of the accident, that it must be deemed that he had a valid licence to drive an autorickshaw as well and that, therefore, the liability has to be fastened on the insurance company. In those two cases, what was decided was that the person driving the vehicle should not have been disqualified for holding or obtaining a valid licence. In the words of Maharajan, j. in Madras Motor and Genl. Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Madathiammal (supra), section 96 enables the insurance company to defend the action against it on the ground that there has been a breach of specified condition of the policy and enables company to incorporate in the policy any of the conditions mentioned in sub-clause (ii) of clause (b) of section 96 (2), which enables the insurance company to incorporate in the insurance policy, the conditions excluding the driving by a named person or persons or by any person who is not duly licensed or by any person who has been disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence during the period of disqualification. This clause it may be noted contains three sub-clauses which are disjunctive, viz. : (1) excluding driving by a named person or persons; or (2) excluding driving by any person who is not duly licensed; or (3) excluding driving by any person who has been disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence during the period of disqualification. The first clause permits an insurance company to rid itself of the liability by providing that if an