JUDGMENT Mr. Vijender Singh Malik, J.: - This is an appeal brought by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited challenging the award dated 3.6.2010 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palwal (for short, “the Tribunal”) on two points, namely, the income of the deceased as well as the validity of the driving licence held by Roop Chand, respondent No.1. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurer has submitted that Devi Sahai (deceased) had retired from Government Senior Secondary School, Palwal in the year 2003 and he was getting Rs.9,000/- per month as pension. According to him, as admitted by his widow, she was getting Rs.12,000/- per month as pension from the Government. According to him, if the deceased was getting Rs.9,000/- per month as pension and after his death his wife is getting Rs.12,000/- per month as pension, then there was no loss suffered by the claimants on the death of Devi Sahai. According to him, even if it is believed that after his retirement, he was working as Principal in a private school at village Jaindapur and was getting Rs.5,000/- per month, then the loss would be only in a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month. He has submitted that learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.14,000/- per month. 3. The next point on which the award has been questioned is that respondent No.1 was granted a licence to drive motorcycle, scooter, car and tractor and that he was not authorized to drive a jeep, which he was driving at the time of the accident. According to him, learned Tribunal has been wrong in taking him as authorized to drive a jeep on the licence authorizing him to drive motorcycle, scooter, car and tractor. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has cited before me a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Angad Kol and others [2009(2) Law Herald (SC) 1249 : 2010(1) Law Herald (Acc.) 374] : (2009) 11 SCC 356, where driver, respondent No.6, was not found holding a valid driving licence for goods carrier and it was held that the breach of conditions of insurance on the part of respondent No.6, the driver and respondent No.7, the owner was apparent because the vehicle being driven by the person was without a valid driving licence. In the said case, recovery rights were given to the insurer of the amount of compensation payable to the claimants. 5. It is true that the deceased was getting Rs.9,000/- per month as pension while his wife is getting Rs.12.000/- as family pension after his death. Apparently, it appears to be a gain to the wife after the death of her husband. However, on a deeper thought, it appears that the family pension increased due to implementation of report of 6th Pay Commission. Had the deceased been alive at the time of implementation of the said Pay Commission report, his pension would have been increased and would have been much above the amount of family pension being received by his widow after his death. The question, however, for decision in this case is different. The question is as to whether the family pension paid by the Government after the death of the deceased employee to his dependents is to be deducted while assessing compensation in a motor accident claims case. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Lal Dei and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another 2008 ACJ 1107 has laid down that the amount of family pension given to the family after the death of the deceased employee is given even otherwise than on account of the accidental death. The decision in the above cited case is based on the earlier decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Helen C. Rebello Vs. Maharashtra State Road Trans. Corporation 1999 ACJ 10 (SC), where Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has specifically dealt with this question and has held that family pension is earned by an employee for the benefit of his family in the form of his contribution in the service in terms of the service conditions, receivable by the heirs after his death and the heirs receive family pension even otherwise than the accidental death. No co-relation between the two is held to be there by Hon’ble Supreme and, therefore, it is held that the family pension amount paid to the family cannot be deducted while calculating the compensation awarded to the claimants. No co-relation between the two is held to be there by Hon’ble Supreme and, therefore, it is held that the family pension amount paid to the family cannot be deducted while calculating the compensation awarded to the claimants. Therefore, the Tribunal even in the absence of evidence as to what would have been the amount of pension payable to the deceased on account of implementation of the 6th Pay Commission report has taken his pension as Rs.9,000/- and has added to it an amount of Rs.5,000/- received by him as salary by working as Principal in a private school. 6. Learned Tribunal applied a cut of 1/3rd to the aforesaid amount of Rs.14,000/-, obtained after addition of the amount of pension and amount of salary received by working as Principal of a private school and had obtained Rs.9,333/- as monthly dependency of the claimants, which multiplied by 12 brought out Rs.1,11,996/- as the annual dependency of the claimants. The deceased had been 60 years of age and taking guidance from the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another [2009(3) Law Herald (SC) 2107 : 2010(1) Law Herald (Acc.) (SC) 65] : 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) 77, the multiplier of 7 was adopted and a sum of Rs.7,83,972 has been found as compensation payable to the claimants on the death of Devi Sahai. A sum of Rs.20,000/- has been added to this amount in the name of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses and a sum of Rs.8,03,972/- has been assessed as compensation payable to the claimants. I find no reason to take exception to this amount and, therefore, uphold this compensation payable to the claimants. 7. Coming to the question of validity of the driving licence, the driving licence held by respondent no.1 authorized him to drive the motorcycle, scooter, car and tractor. Jeep is not specifically mentioned in the licence and, therefore, the licence on the face of it does not authorize respondent No.1 to drive the jeep. However, it is not a case where the vehicle being driven by respondent No.1 is goods carrier or a transport vehicle. Jeep falls within the definition of Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) under section 2(21) of the Act and there is no separate definition of jeep available in the Act. 8. However, it is not a case where the vehicle being driven by respondent No.1 is goods carrier or a transport vehicle. Jeep falls within the definition of Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) under section 2(21) of the Act and there is no separate definition of jeep available in the Act. 8. Learned Tribunal has taken into account the statement of Gajender Singh, Licensing Clerk examined as RW-1, who has stated that licence fee for car and jeep is the same. He has also stated that a person authorized to drive a car is authorized automatically to drive a jeep also. Taking into account the fact that the driving licence (Ex. R2) was a valid document, learned Tribunal took the same to be authorizing respondent no.1 to drive jeep also. I find no fault with the reasons given by learned Tribunal to hold that the driving licence (Ex. R2) authorized respondent no.1 to drive the jeep and, therefore, by driving the jeep, holding licence (Ex.R2), no terms and conditions of the insurance policy stand violated by the driver or owner of the vehicle. The decision in Angad Kol’s case (supra) would not stand attracted to the facts of this case because there the vehicle being driven was a transport vehicle and the licence held by the driver did not authorize him to drive the transport vehicle. 9. In these circumstances, I fail to find any substance in the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and, therefore, upholding the award made by learned Tribunal, dismiss the appeal with no order as to costs. ------------