BHAWANI SINGH, C. J. ( 1 ) THIS judgment will dispose of M. A. No. 531 of 1998 (Savitri Devi v. Naresh Kumar Harikrishna madhwani) and M. A. No. 830 of 1998 (Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Savitri devi) and the cross-objections filed by the insurance company in M. A. No. 531 of 1998. ( 2 ) THESE appeals are directed against the award dated 20. 2. 1998 of the Motor accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur in claim Case No. 1 of 1995. ( 3 ) THE claimants are legal representatives of Radheshyam Sahu (deceased) who was travelling in Tempo No. MIL 6144 to village Kherkhena driven by one Santram sahu. Tempo was hit by Matador No. MOT 9039 which came from opposite direction. Deceased died due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident. Matador vehicle was driven by Mohd. Yunus, owned by naresh Kumar Harikrishna Madhwani and lajwanti Devi and insured with Oriental insurance Co. Ltd. It was a commercial vehicle. Insurance company has taken the defence that Mohd. Yunus did not possess valid and effective driving licence to drive matador. ( 4 ) THE Tribunal found that Radheshyam died in the accident on account of rash and negligent driving of Matador by Mohd. Yunus. His income was Rs. 800 per month and the claimants are entitled to get compensation. It also found that the driver possessed driving licence at the time of accident. The award of Rs. 2,00,000 carrying interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application till realisation has been made. Both sides have objections to this award and hence separate appeals and cross-objection have been filed assailing the same. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for parties were heard and record perused. There is enough evidence to prove that the claimants are legal representatives of the deceased who died in the accident on 14. 2. 1990 when matador No. MOT 9039 driven rashly and negligently dashed against the Tempo No. MIL 6144. Matador has been found responsible for committing the accident. This vehicle was insured with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Therefore, it is established that the insurance company with which the vehicle was insured is liable to pay the compensation. ( 6 ) CONTENTION of Mr. Ruprah, learned counsel for Oriental Insurance Co. Matador has been found responsible for committing the accident. This vehicle was insured with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Therefore, it is established that the insurance company with which the vehicle was insured is liable to pay the compensation. ( 6 ) CONTENTION of Mr. Ruprah, learned counsel for Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. that the vehicle was transport vehicle and there should have been endorsement on the licence to drive the transport vehicle cannot be accepted. Light motor vehicle has been defined to mean a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road roller the unladen weight of any of which does not exceed 7500 kilograms. Transport vehicle has been defined in section 2 (47)to mean a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle. Transport vehicle is included in the category of light motor vehicle. Matador vehicle is included in light motor vehicle. Therefore, the Gujarat high Court decision in Manohar Jamatmal sindhi v. Ranguba, 1994 ACJ 1280 (Gujarat), does not apply in the present case. The relevant decision applicable would be of Supreme Court in Ashok Gangadhar maratha v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. , 2000 ACJ 319 (SC), on which reliance is placed by learned counsel for the claimants. Another decision is of this court in mohd. Karim Khan v. Shamsher Khan, 1999 ACJ 1250 (MP ). ( 7 ) TURNING to the question of compensation to be awarded in this case, we find that the deceased was earning more than rs. 800 per month as per the claim petition at the time of accident. Dhani Ram states that the deceased was earning Rs. 5,000 to rs. 6,000 per month. Since the income of deceased has been stated to be Rs. 1,200 in the claim petition, we accept this statement and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenditure, the monthly dependency comes to Rs. 800 and Rs. 9,600 per annum. At the time of the accident, the deceased was 25 years old, therefore, the multiplier of 18 would be applicable in this case. The amount of compensation calculated in this way comes to Rs. 1,72,800 (Rs. 800 x 12 x 18 = Rs. 1,72,800 ). Savitri devi is entitled to receive Rs. 5,000 towards consortium and Rs. 2,000 towards funeral expenses, taking the total compensation to Rs. 1,79,800. The amount of compensation calculated in this way comes to Rs. 1,72,800 (Rs. 800 x 12 x 18 = Rs. 1,72,800 ). Savitri devi is entitled to receive Rs. 5,000 towards consortium and Rs. 2,000 towards funeral expenses, taking the total compensation to Rs. 1,79,800. Accordingly, the award of the Claims Tribunal is modified. The claimants are entitled to get compensation of Rs. 1,79,800 (rupees one lakh seventy-nine thousand eight hundred) only with interest at the rate of 10 (ten) per cent per annum from the date of application till the date of payment. ( 8 ) CONSEQUENTLY, M. A. No. 531 of 1998 is allowed. M. A. No. 830 of 1998 and cross-objections are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Orders accordingly. .