JUDGMENT Kuldip Singh, J.-This judgment shall dispose of FAO No. 344 of 2002 and Cross Objections No.505 of 2002 arising out of award dated 29.5.2002 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II), Una in MAC Petition (RBT) No.39/01/2K awarding Rs.6,67,400/- compensation to appellants along with 9% interest per annum within 45 days from the date of passing of the award, failing which interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the petition shall be payable. The respondents No.1 and 2 were held liable to pay the compensation. The petition against respondent No.3 insurer was dismissed. The amount of compensation was ordered to be apportioned as indicated in para 21 of the impugned award. The appeal has been filed for enhancement of compensation by the claimants, whereas the crossobjections have been filed by driver and owner of Jeep No. HP-55- 1152 for reduction of quantum of compensation and fixing liability on respondent No.3 insurer. 2. The facts, in brief, are that Varender Kumar on 16.11.1999 was riding scooter towards Nadaun and at place near ‘dosarka’, Tappa Jalari at about 11.15 a.m.jeep No.HP-55-1152 owned by respondent No.2 and was being driven by respondent No.1 rashly and negligently hit the scooter of Varender Kumar, who fell down and succumbed to his injuries. The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1. The deceased was 30 years of age and was earning Rs.7000/- per month by working as Fitter. The appellants are the widow, son, daughter, father and mother of deceased. The Jeep No.HP-55-1152 was insured with respondent No.3. The appellants filed claim petition claiming Rs.10,00,000/- compensation. 3. The petition was contested by respondents No.1 and 2 , they denied the accident. The respondent No.3 insurer took the plea that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the scooter rider. The petition is bad for non-joinder of owner and insurer of the scooter. The respondent No.1 driver of the jeep No. HP-55-1152 was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. The insurer has denied the accident also. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed:- 1. Whether death of Varender Kumar took place due to rash and negligent driving ofrespondent No.1 as alleged? ..OPP. 2. The respondent No.1 driver of the jeep No. HP-55-1152 was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. The insurer has denied the accident also. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed:- 1. Whether death of Varender Kumar took place due to rash and negligent driving ofrespondent No.1 as alleged? ..OPP. 2. In case issue No.1 is proved in affirmative to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to and from whom?.. OPP. 3. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? .OPR-3. insured with respondent No.3 at the time accident. The learned counsel for the respondent No.3 insurer has supported the impugned award. 4. Whether the respondent No.1 did not possess a valid and effective driving licence atthat time ? .OPR-3. 5. Whether the petition is not maintainable as alleged? .. OPR-3. 6. Relief. The issues No.1 and 4 were answered in affirmative, issues No.3 and 5 in negative and under issue No.2, an amount of Rs.6,67,400/- was awarded to appellants. The award amount was ordered to be paid by respondents No.1 and 2. 4. Heard and perused the record. Mr. R.K.Gautam, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants has submitted that the Tribunal has applied multiplier of 12 on the lower side. The compensation on account of conventional amount has also been awarded on the lower side, interest awarded by the Tribunal is wrong. The interest should have been allowed at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization. The respondent No.3 insurer has been wrongly exonerated. The learned counsel for respondents No.1, 2 / Cross-objectors has submitted that the Tribunal has awarded compensation to the appellants on the higher side, the insurer has been wrongly exonerated, liability, if any, is of the insurer of Jeep No.HP-55-1152 to pay the compensation as the said vehicle was insured with respondent No.3 at the time accident. The learned counsel for the respondent No.3 insurer has supported the impugned award. 5. The respondents 1, 2 / Cross-Objectors in the cross objections have disputed the quantum of compensation and their liability to pay the compensation. The jeep No.HP-55-1152 was insured at the time of accident, therefore, liability, if any, is of the insurer. The learned counsel for the respondent No.3 insurer has supported the impugned award. 5. The respondents 1, 2 / Cross-Objectors in the cross objections have disputed the quantum of compensation and their liability to pay the compensation. The jeep No.HP-55-1152 was insured at the time of accident, therefore, liability, if any, is of the insurer. The Insurance Company has been wrongly exonerated by holding that the driver of vehicle No.HP-55-1152 was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. The respondents No.1 and 2 have not questioned the award on the point of negligence. Therefore, the question involved in the appeal and cross-objections is the amount of compensation and who shall pay the compensation. 6. Ex.R-1 is the registration certificate of vehicle No.HP-55- 1152 wherein the vehicle has been shown LMV, Ex.R-1/A is the copy of driving licence of Kulwant Singh for driving LMV vehicle. The licence is effective for the period 3.4.1999 to 2.4.2019. Ex.R-2 is the insurance policy for the period 21.1.1999 to 20.1.2000. 7. PW-1 Krishan Kumar, Deputy Manager (Admn.), Continental Foundations Joint Venture has stated that Varender Kumar was working as Fitter in their Company and his salary was Rs. 6523/- of 29 days. His salary was approximately Rs.7000/-, in addition, he was also earning over time. PW-2 Anita Kumari has stated that her husband Varender Kumar was working as Fitter in a Dam at Bhavanagar and his salary at the time of his death was Rs.7000/- per month, an amount of Rs.21000/- was spent on his last rites. 8. RW-1 Kulwant Singh driver of vehicle No.HP-55-1152 has stated that his mother Dharam Devi is the owner of said vehicle and he is driver on the said vehicle, copy of driving licence Ex.RW-1/A was put to him in cross-examination which he admitted. 9. The Tribunal has held that in view of policy Ex.R-2, the vehicle in question was commercial vehicle used for carrying goods on hire and reward basis. Kulwant Singh did not possess a licence which authorized him to drive a commercial vehicle. The Tribunal has relied endorsement on the driving licence of Kulwant Singh and ultimately held that Kulwant Singh could drive only noncommercial light motor vehicle. In other words, at the time of accident, Kulwant Singh was holding licence to drive L.M.V. 10. Kulwant Singh did not possess a licence which authorized him to drive a commercial vehicle. The Tribunal has relied endorsement on the driving licence of Kulwant Singh and ultimately held that Kulwant Singh could drive only noncommercial light motor vehicle. In other words, at the time of accident, Kulwant Singh was holding licence to drive L.M.V. 10. The perusal of R.C. Ex.R-1 of vehicle No.HP-55-1152 indicates that the vehicle was L.M.V. In National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Annappa Irappa Nesaria alias Nesaragi and others (2008) 3 SCC 464, the accident took place on 9.12.1999. The Supreme Court has noticed the change in Form No.4 with respect to “transport vehicle” w.e.f. 28.3.2001 and held in para 20 of the report as follows:- “From what has been noticed hereinbefore, it is evident that “transport vehicle” has now been substituted for “medium goods vehicle” and “heavy goods vehicle”. The light motor vehicle continued, at the relevant point of time to cover both “light passenger carriage vehicle” and “light goods carriage vehicle”. A driver who had a valid licence to drive a light motor vehicle, therefore, was authorized to drive a light goods vehicle as well.” 11. On 13.12.2005 this appeal was ordered to be listed for hearing after the decision of larger Bench in FAO No. 307 of 1998 on the question referred, which was as follows :- “Whether a driving licence permitting the holder of the licence to drive a light motor vehicle entitles him to drive a transport vehicle, the unladen weight of which is less than 7500 kg.” The Full Bench after noticing (2006) 4 SCC 250, (2008) 3 SCC 464 and (2008) 8 SCC 253, has answered the reference on 30.9.2008 as follows:- “In the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court the reference is covered and is answered accordingly.” 12. The accident took place on 16.11.1999, the offending vehicle No.HP-55-1152 was light motor vehicle and respondent No.1 was holding licence to drive light motor vehicle. In view of (2008) 3 SCC 464 (supra), the light motor vehicle at the relevant point of time covered both ‘light passenger carriage vehicle’ and ‘light goods carriage vehicle’. A driver who had a valid licence to drive a light motor vehicle was authorized to drive a light goods vehicle as well. In view of (2008) 3 SCC 464 (supra), the light motor vehicle at the relevant point of time covered both ‘light passenger carriage vehicle’ and ‘light goods carriage vehicle’. A driver who had a valid licence to drive a light motor vehicle was authorized to drive a light goods vehicle as well. Thus, the respondent No.1 on 16.11.1999 was holding effective and valid driving licence Ex.R-1/A to drive vehicle No.HP-55-1152 a light motor vehicle. The contrary finding recorded by the Tribunal regarding the validity of the licence of respondent No.1 is not sustainable and is set-aside. 13. The deceased was drawing Rs.6900/- salary per month. It is reasonable to infer that deceased was spending on himself 1/3rd amount of his salary, therefore, dependency of the appellants comes to Rs. 4600/- per month or Rs.4600 x 12 = Rs.55200/- per annum. The deceased was 30 years of age at the time of accident. The appellants in para 3 of the petition have pleaded the age of the deceased as 30 years. The respondents in reply to corresponding para 3 of the petition have denied para 3 for want of knowledge, which is no denial. PW-2 Anita Kumari widow of deceased in her statement has given the age of the deceased 30 years, she was not cross-examined on the age of the deceased. In the post mortem report Ex.PW-6/A, the age of the deceased has been given 30 years. Therefore, the age of the deceased at the time of accident and death can be safely taken 30 years. 14. In Sandesh Kumari and others Vs. Rajesh Kumar and another, 2008 ACJ 1672, the deceased was 30 years and this Court had applied multiplier of 15 instead of 12 applied by the Tribunal. In the present case also the deceased was 30 years at the time of accident and the Tribunal has applied multiplier of 12. Therefore, in view of Sandesh Kumari (supra) 15 is the appropriate multiplier to assess the compensation. The appellants are thus entitled to Rs.55200 x 15 = Rs. 8, 28,000/- on account of death of Varender Kumar. The Tribunal has awarded conventional amount Rs.5000/- without indicating various heads of conventional amount. In my opinion, the conventional amount of Rs.5000/- awarded by the Tribunal is also on the lower side. The appellants are thus entitled to Rs.55200 x 15 = Rs. 8, 28,000/- on account of death of Varender Kumar. The Tribunal has awarded conventional amount Rs.5000/- without indicating various heads of conventional amount. In my opinion, the conventional amount of Rs.5000/- awarded by the Tribunal is also on the lower side. The appellants / claimants on account of loss of consortium, love and affection and for performing last rites of the deceased are entitled to atleast Rs.25000/-. Thus, the appellants are entitled to total Rs.8,53,000/-(Rs.8,28,000/- + Rs.25,000/-) as compensation on account of death of Varender Kumar along with 9% interest on the awarded amount from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 3.3.2000 till payment. The respondents No. 1 and 2 jointly and severally are liable to pay the amount of Rs.8,53,000/- along with 9% interest, as noticed above, to the appellants / claimants. 15. The vehicle No.HP-55-1152 was insured vide policy Ex.R-2, which was effective on the date of accident. The respondent No.3 insurer has failed to establish that respondent No.1 was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. Therefore, respondent No.3 is liable to indemnify respondent No.2 owner of the vehicle No.HP-55-1152. The compensation amount shall be apportioned along with interest as follows: 1. Smt. Anita Kumari (widow) Rs. 3,03,000.00 2. Master Rajat Kumar (son) Rs. 2,00,000.00 3. Miss Shelja (daughter) Rs. 2,00,000.00 4. Sh. Amar Chand (father) Rs. 75,000.00 5. Smt. Shubh Devi (mother) Rs. 75,000.00 The share of minor appellants/claimants shall be invested by way of FDRs in some Nationalized Bank till they attain the majority. The amount of compensation awarded above is inclusive of any amount paid to the appellants/claimants under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act regarding the accident in question. 16. No other point was urged. 17. The result of the above discussion, the appeal as well as cross-objections are partly allowed. An amount of Rs.8, 53,000/- is awarded in favour of the appellants / claimants and against the respondents jointly and severally along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 3.3.2000 till payment, out of the award amount appellants / claimants shall get as follows: Smt. Anita Kumari Rs.3,03,000/- along with interest, Master Rajat Kumar Rs.2,00,000/- along with interest, Miss Shelja Rs. 2,00,000/- along with interest, Sh. Amar Chand Rs. 2,00,000/- along with interest, Sh. Amar Chand Rs. 75,000/- along with interest and Smt. Shubh Devi Rs.75,000/- along with interest. The share of the minor appellants/ claimants shall be invested by way of FDRs in some Nationalized Bank till they attain majority. The respondent No.3 shall pay the entire compensation amount along with interest to the appellants / claimants. The award amount is inclusive of the amount, if any, awarded under Section 140 of the Act. The cross objections have been considered in the judgment, therefore, CMP No.1337 of 2005 has become infructuous. No costs.