Judgment J.C. Verma, J.-Learned Counsel for both the parties submitted that the appeal can be decided today itself Therefore, arguments have been heard finally. 2. The present Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company against the order dated March 31, 1998 passed the authority appointed under Workmen Compensation Act, Beawar in the application No. 51/96 filed by Smt. Dhanni Devi mother of deceased-workman Sarwan Kumar. 3. TheCommissioner had awarded an amount of Rs. 2,21,370/-as per schedule and statutory calculation providing under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. One Sarwan Kumar had died while on duty in the accident occurred on November 20, 1996 at 7.30 pm when he was driving the jeep No. RJ-01/T-0024. The application for claim had been filed by mother of the workman. The deceased was of the age of 22 years and was earning Rs. 2,000/-per month. The appellant was made party being insurer of the vehicle. The accident was admitted. On the evidence produced by parties the Commissioner vide order dated March 31, 1998 had awarded an amount Rs. 2,21,370/-along with the interest at the rate of 12% payable from December 5, 1995 till its actual realisation. 4. The order is being challenged in the present appeal. It is submitted by the appellant that the driver was authorised only to drive the light motor vehicle, but he was driving the taxi. The argument on the face of it cannot be accepted. The vehicle was insured for the driver also. 5. Itgoes without saying that the vehicle Taxi also falls under the Light Motor Vehicle, as has been held by this Court in S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 40 1/98, the Oriental Insurance Comp. v. Ladu Singh decided on May 5, 2000. This Court has observed as under: “It is then submitted by the Counsel for the Insurance Company that the driver of the vehicle was holding the driving licence of light motor vehicle. Whereas he was driving a jeep used as a taxi and not as a private vehicle and therefore, the Insurance Company is protected if any accident has arisen on account of the driving of the vehicle negligently or otherwise by the driver who does not hold a licence for driving the vehicle. Whereas he was driving a jeep used as a taxi and not as a private vehicle and therefore, the Insurance Company is protected if any accident has arisen on account of the driving of the vehicle negligently or otherwise by the driver who does not hold a licence for driving the vehicle. There cannot be any manner of doubt that the jeep is a light motor vehicle and user of that vehicle as taxi by the driver does not tantamount to breach of any term of the policy of the Insurance Company because the driver was holding driving licence for light motor vehicle.” 6. Counselfor appellant raised objection in regard to multiplier which factor is provided under Motor Vehicles Act. This argument is not of even worth consideration for the reason that the compensation is to be awarded as per schedule and calculation which are provided under the provisions of Workmen’s Compensation Act. In the present case the Commissioner had awarded the compensation as per schedule and calculation provided under the Act. It is not disputed that the compensation so awarded is appropriate, just and legal and as per the provisions of Workman Compensation Act. 7. Certain authorities cited by the appellant in regard to principles and law laid down under the Motor Vehicles Act have no relevance or bearing on the facts of the present case. 8. In my opinion the Insurance Company has unnecessarily challenged the order knowing well that the compensation has been awarded under the provisions of Workmen’s Compensation Act and not under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. 9. After hearing learned Counsel for the appellant and going through the impugned order, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. There is no merit in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed with cost. 10. With the above observations, the Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed with cost of Rs. 5,000/-.