Satish Chandra, J. Present appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, against the judgment and order dated 30.03.2005, passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Lucknow, in Claim Petition No.143 of 2001 (Smt. Kudesia Hashmi & Ors. vs. Sri Kuldeep Singh & Ors.). 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 07/08.08.2000, at about 1.45 A.M., the deceased S. Firoz Aktar Ashmi was going on his Maruti Car bearing No. U.P.32AB-3535 from Sitapur to Lucknow. When he reached near Bakshi-ka-Talab, from the opposite direction, a Truck bearing No. H.R.02A/9867 was coming, whose driver was driving it rashly and negligently and hit the car which resulted the death of Mr. F.A. Ashmi on the spot. Necessary FIR was lodged. The claimant has filed a claim petition before the Tribunal who has awarded a compensation of Rs.8,89,500/- against the appellant-Insurance Company. Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company. 3. With this background, heard Sri Rajeev Misra, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company, who submits that the accident is not in dispute. The truck was insured by the appellant-Insurance Company. 4. The main disputed point is that the driver of the truck Sri Dhan Singh alias Dhana Singh was holding a valid driving license of L.M.V., but he was driving the H.M.V. This is a violation of the terms and conditions. So, the appellant-Insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. He also submits that the award is on higher side. For this purpose, he relied on the ratio laid down in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Angad Kol & Ors., (2009) 11 SCC 356 . 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimant-respondents have justified the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. 6. After hearing both the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that the accident is not disputed. On the date of the accident, the truck was insured by the appellant-Insurance Company and the policy was alive. Both the drivers of the vehicles were holding a valid driving license. About the driving license, it is true that Sri Dhan Singh alias Dhana Singh, the driver of the truck was holding a driving license of LMV. 7. It may be mentioned that in the case of Ashok Gangadhar Maratha vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Both the drivers of the vehicles were holding a valid driving license. About the driving license, it is true that Sri Dhan Singh alias Dhana Singh, the driver of the truck was holding a driving license of LMV. 7. It may be mentioned that in the case of Ashok Gangadhar Maratha vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 1999 SC 3181 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Annappa Irappa Nesarila alias Nesaragi and Ors., JT 2008 (1) SC 617 : 2008 (3) SCC 464 , it was contended that a person who is having a licence to drive light motor vehicle can drive the commercial vehicle also. 8. Further, in the case of S. Iyyapan vs. M/s. United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Another, JT 2013 (10) SC 85, it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that :- "17. The heading "Insurance of Motor Vehicles against Third Party Risks" given in Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Chapter VIII of 1939 Act) itself shows the intention of the legislature to make third party insurance compulsory and to ensure that the victims of accident arising out of use of motor vehicles would be able to get compensation for the death or injuries suffered. The provision has been inserted in order to protect the persons travelling in vehicles or using the road from the risk attendant upon the user of the motor vehicles on the road. To overcome this ugly situation, the legislature has made it obligatory that no motor vehicle shall be used unless a third party insurance is in force. 18. Reading the provisions of Sections 146 and 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it is evidently clear that in certain circumstances the insurer's right is safeguarded but in any event the insurer has to pay compensation when a valid certificate of insurance is issued notwithstanding the fact that the insurer may proceed against the insured for recovery of the amount. Under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the insurer can defend the action inter alia on the grounds, namely, (i) the vehicle was not driven by a named person, (ii) it was being driven by a person who was not having a duly granted licence, and (iii) person driving the vehicle was disqualified to hold and obtain a driving licence. Hence, in our considered opinion, the insurer cannot disown its liability on the ground that although the driver was holding a licence to drive a light motor vehicle but before driving light motor vehicle used as commercial vehicle, no endorsement to drive commercial vehicle was obtained in the driving licence. In any case, it is the statutory right of a third party to recover the amount of compensation so awarded from the insurer. It is for the insurer to proceed against the insured for recovery of the amount in the event there has been violation of any condition of the insurance policy. 19. In the instant case, admittedly the driver was holding a valid driving licence to drive light motor vehicle. There is no dispute that the motor vehicle in question, by which accident took place, was Mahindra Maxi Cab. Merely because the driver did not get any endorsement in the driving licence to drive Mahindra Maxi Cab, which is a light motor vehicle, the High Court has committed grave error of law in holding that the insurer is not liable to pay compensation because the driver was not holding the licence to drive the commercial vehicle. The impugned judgment is, therefore, liable to be set aside. 20. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and hold that the insurer is liable to pay the compensation so awarded to the dependants of the victim of the fatal accident. However, there shall be no order as to costs." 9. In the light of above mentioned legal position, we are of the view that the Insurance Company cannot escape from its liability to pay the compensation. 10. Regarding the amount of compensation, it appears that the deceased was having a good savings in N.S.C.; fixed deposits; current account; and recurring deposits Schemes. The balance-sheet was filed by showing the income of Rs.25,000/- per month, but the Tribunal has taken only Rs.10,000/- per month. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the same appears reasonable. The deceased was 55 years, so the multiplier of 11 was rightly applied. 11. In these circumstances, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal appears reasonable. There is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. The same is hereby sustained along with the reasons mentioned therein. 12. The deceased was 55 years, so the multiplier of 11 was rightly applied. 11. In these circumstances, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal appears reasonable. There is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. The same is hereby sustained along with the reasons mentioned therein. 12. The registry of this Court is directed to transmit the amount/record, if any, deposited in this Court to the concerned Tribunal, within a period of one month, who is further directed to disburse the same within a period of three months thereafter, in terms of the award. Appellant-Insurance Company is also directed to deposit the full/remaining amount within the Tribunal, if not already deposited, within a period of one month. 13. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant-Insurance Company is dismissed, as stated above. _______________