Judgment Gurusharan Sharma, J. Heard the parties and with their consent this appeal is disposed of at the stage of hearing under Order 41, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. One Nirmal Kumar Dutta, son about 5 years of respondent no.1 died in a motor accident on 12.5.1994. In Claim Case No.9 of 1994 filed under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') the Tribunal calculated a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to be paid as compensation, besides interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Applying the amended provision of the Act, which was in force from 14.11.1994, the Tribunal on the basis of IInd Schedule under Section 163A read with chart annexed thereto assessed notional income of the deceased child at Rs.15000/- per annum. 3. Since the accident had taken place on 12.5.1994 the aforesaid amended provisions of the Act and the chart which came into force with effect from 14.11.1994 and was also doubted by the apex Court, was not applicable in the present case. Secondly, it is well settled that in case of death of a child in motor accident, compensation is to be awarded on lump sum basis, considering the status of the parties, financial condition of the family of which the deceased belonged to, the future expectancy of the deceased and love and affection of the parents. However, the deceased child was a non-earning member. Considering all aspect of the matter in the present case, in my opinion, a sum of Rs.50,000/- would be the proper assessment of compensation on lump sum basis to be paid to the claimants-respondents herein. Hence, the impugned judgment and award is modified and the quantum of total compensation assessed by the Tribunal to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- is reduced to Rs.50,000/- only. 4. Mr. Ajay Kumar, counsel for the appellant-Insurance company submitted that insurer was not liable to indemnify, the amount of compensation to be paid under the Act on behalf of the owner for violation of the terms of the insurance policy, which was brought on record. According to Mr. 4. Mr. Ajay Kumar, counsel for the appellant-Insurance company submitted that insurer was not liable to indemnify, the amount of compensation to be paid under the Act on behalf of the owner for violation of the terms of the insurance policy, which was brought on record. According to Mr. Kumar admittedly the vehicle (BR-12-9293) was a transport vehicle within the meaning of Section 2(47) of the Act, so as required under Section 3 of the Act, read with Rule 18 of the Bihar Motor Vehicles Rules, 1992 the driver of such vehicle having licence to drive light vehicle required special authorisation to drive transport vehicle. According to certificate of District Transport Officer, Dumka on 22.1.1997 and the report of investigation dated 24.1.1997, the driver had no licence to drive passenger-carrying vehicle. In the aforesaid circumstance, the terms of the insurance policy having been violated, the insurer is not liable to indemnify the amount of compensation payable to the claimants respondents herein by owner of the vehicle in question. In my opinion, the Tribunal erred in asking the insurance company to pay compensation amount. Accordingly, this part of the impugned judgment is also modified to the extent that the aforesaid amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- along with interest 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till payment to be paid by the owner of the vehicle- respondent no.4 and is not to be indemnified by the insurer-appellant. 5. This appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid modification in the impugned judgment and award.