Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—Instant civil misc. appeal and cross-objection arise out of common facts and award, hence same are being decided by this common judgment. 2. This misc. appeal has been filed by the appellants claimants against the award dated 26.5.1997 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tonk (for short, 'the learned Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 106/1995. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 24.9.1995, Chaturbhuj was going in the Jungle of Naya Gaon, Police Station Uniara. At that time, respondent No.1 drove his car No. RJ-25-C-0404 in rash and negligent manner with excessive speed and hit Chaturbhuj who sustained severe injuries and was taken to Saadat Hospital, Tonk. During the course of treatment Chaturbhuj died. 4. Thereafter, an FIR was lodged regarding this incident. Thereafter, claimants appellants filed claim petition before the learned Tribunal. Notices were issued. Written statements were filed by the claimants respondents. The issues were framed. Thereafter, the learned Tribunal after hearing both the parties passed he impugned award. Hence, this misc. appeal before this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the claimants-appellants submits that the learned Tribunal has manifestly erred in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability of paying compensation on the ground that the driver who was driving the car, at the time of accident was having a driving licence authorizing him to drive heavy vehicles whereas the vehicle involving in the accident was a car i.e. the light vehicle. First of all no such evidence was examined on behalf of the Insurance Company that the respondent No.1 was disqualified to drive a light motor vehicle nor it has been proved that respondent No.1 was disqualified to drive a light motor vehicle. The burden of prove that respondent No.1 is not having a valid driving licence, as on Insurance Company i.e. respondent No.3 has been totally failed to discharge its burden. In these circumstances, by drawing an adverse inference against it, the liability of paying compensation should have been fastened on the insurance company also. If a person is holding a driving licence to drive heavy vehicle is always to drive a light motor vehicle and in such circumstances he decision relating to issue No. 2 deserves to be quashed and set aside. The learned Tribunal has further erred in considering the monthly dependency of the family only as Rs. 1000/-. If a person is holding a driving licence to drive heavy vehicle is always to drive a light motor vehicle and in such circumstances he decision relating to issue No. 2 deserves to be quashed and set aside. The learned Tribunal has further erred in considering the monthly dependency of the family only as Rs. 1000/-. The learned Tribunal has reached at conclusion that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 1500/- whereas it was proved by un-rebutted evidence that the monthly income of the deceased at that time was about Rs. 3,000/- per month and in future, there was every likelihood of rise in his income. Very low amount has been awarded under the head of loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. The driver was not authorized to drive the vehicle involved in the accident which was a light motor vehicle. The finding of the learned Tribunal is against the statutory provisions of Motor Vehicles Act as well as the settled preposition of law. In support of his case learned counsel has placed reliance upon the following judgments : 1. DB Civil Special Appeal No. 43/99 and two other connected matters, Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Limited vs. Kishori Sharan Pareek and others; and 2. Rukmani and others vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Others, 1999 ACJ 171. 6. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent No.3 insurance company has seriously opposed the aforementioned submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants and submits that the learned Tribunal has rightly passed the impugned award. He submits that in the matter of Qazi Atta Mohd. vs. Sayed Fazal Ali and others, 2004 ACJ 1012 it has been held that 'it cannot be presumed that a person holding licence to drive heavy vehicle was initially issued a licence for a light motor vehicle including a jeep and only thereafter a licence to drive heavy vehicle was issued and he was authorized to drive the jeep'. 7. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the matter of National Insurance Company vs. Swaran Singh and Others 2004 ACJ 1, under the head held that 'when the person has been granted licence for one type of vehicle but at the relevant time he was driving another another type of vehicle but at the relevant time he as driving another type of vehicle". 8. 8. He has also placed reliance upon the judgment of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Zaharulnisha and Others, 2008 ACJ 1928 . 9. Mr. R.P. Garg, learned counsel for the cross-objector submits that so far as liability of Insurance Company is concerned, the finding of the learned Tribunal is against the provisions of Section 7 of the Motor Vehicle Act which provides that to have a license to drive transport vehicle which includes both medium and heavy goods as well as passenger vehicles one must have license to drive LMV at least for one year. As soon as a person gets driving license of any category of transport vehicle, his LMV license merges with license of transport vehicle. In the present case the driver was having a license to drive heavy goods vehicle that means he was earlier having a license to drive LMV and even after having license to drive heavy goods vehicle, he is authorized even to drive a heavy goods vehicle. In this accident the vehicle is a light motor vehicle and respondent No.1 was authorized to drive this vehicle. In these circumstances there was no breach of policy condition and hence the Insurance Company has been wrongly exonerated from the liability of paying compensation. 10. He further submits that no evidence has been led on behalf of the insurance company to prove any breach of policy condition or that such breach of policy condition was willful on the part of the owner of the vehicle. In this regard principle has been laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in its judgment given in the matter of "Lal Chand vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd." reported in M.A.C.D. 2006(2) (SC) 1051 in which it has been held that the duty of the owner of the vehicle before appointing the driver and also as to in what condition insurance company cannot be absolved of its liability to pay compensation. Hence, in view of this judgment also the finding of issue No.3 deserves to be quashed and set aside. 11. From a bare perusal of the facts of the case as also after carefully scanning the entire material made available to me, in my considered view, the learned Tribunal has passed the award dated 26.5.1997 after considering the dated 26.5.1997 after considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the legal aspect of the matter. 11. From a bare perusal of the facts of the case as also after carefully scanning the entire material made available to me, in my considered view, the learned Tribunal has passed the award dated 26.5.1997 after considering the dated 26.5.1997 after considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the legal aspect of the matter. Thus, the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal needs no interference of this Court. 12. In the result, this misc. appeal and cross-objection stands dismissed after confirming the award dated 26.5.1997 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tonk in Claim Case No. 106/1995.