JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 20.11.1999, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (First), Jodhpur ('the Tribunal') whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,16,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of application i.e. 28.07.1992. The Insurance Company of the offending vehicle has been exonerated. 2. The application for compensation was filed by the claimants, inter-alia, with the averments that their husband/father Bhanwarlal was driving roadways bus, when on 23.01.1992 at about 5:00 p.m. when the bus was standing at Sasiyon Ki Dhani, the offending bus, which was being driven rashly and negligently by Badriram, came and struck the bus being driven by Bhanwarlal, which resulted in grievous injuries to him, to which he succumbed. 3. It was claimed that the deceased was aged 50 years and used to get a salary of Rs.3,000/- per month. Based on the said averments, compensation was claimed. 4. The application was, inter-alia, resisted by the non-claimants. The Insurance Company resisted its liability on the ground that the driver of the offending bus was not in possession of a valid driving licence, inasmuch as, he had driving licence to drive 'Heavy Goods Vehicle' whereas the bus being 'Heavy Passenger Vehicle' the Insurance Company on account of violation of policy condition was not liable. 5. The Tribunal after the evidence was led by the parties came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus being driven by Badriram. While deciding the issue pertaining to the liability of the Insurance Company, the objection regarding the driver being not in possession of valid driving licence was upheld. While determining the amount of compensation, the Tribunal without commenting on the income of the deceased determined the dependency of the claimants at Rs.1,500/- and applying multiplier of 11, awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.1,98,000/- towards loss of income, Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.4,000/- each towards loss of consortium/loss of love & affection and in all a compensation to the tune of Rs.2,68,000/- along with interest as noticed hereinbefore was awarded. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal committed error in exonerating the Insurance Company from liability to pay the compensation. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal committed error in exonerating the Insurance Company from liability to pay the compensation. It was further submitted that irrespective of the fact whether the driver was in possession of valid driving licence or not, it is not in dispute that the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company and, therefore, in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh & Others, (2004) 3 SCC 297 , the direction to pay and recover should have been granted. It was further submitted that the Tribunal committed error in reducing the compensation by 50% without indicating any reasons, not providing any amount for future prospects, despite the fact that the deceased was in stable employment with the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and applying the multiplier of 11 only, which determination is contrary to the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 . 7. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submitted that once it was found by the Tribunal that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence, there is no question of ordering of pay and recover against the Insurance Company as the award was passed in the year 1999 and the law at the relevant time was validly applied which does not call for any interference at this stage. 8. Despite service no one has appeared on behalf of the owner of the offending vehicle. 9. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 10. Insofar as, the finding of the Tribunal regarding the liability of the Insurance Company is concerned, the violation of policy condition is writ large on record as at the relevant time i.e. at the time of accident on 23.01.1992, there was specific distinction under Section 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, between a 'Heavy Goods Vehicle' and 'Heavy Passenger Vehicle' insofar as, driving licence was concerned. 11. 11. The driving licence in question in the present case, which was held by Badrilal pertained to 'Heavy Goods Vehicle' and he was driving a bus which is a 'Heavy Passenger Vehicle' and, therefore, the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence and, therefore, the Tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion that the Insurance Company was not liable for making payment of compensation. 12. However, admittedly the deceased in the present case qua the vehicle in question was a third party. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Swaran Singh (supra), after considering the said aspect, inter-alia, held as under: “110. The summary of our findings to the various issues as raised in these petitions is as follows: (x) Where on adjudication of the claim under the Act the Tribunal arrives at a conclusion that the insurer has satisfactorily proved its defence in accordance with the provisions of Section 149(2) read with sub-section (7), as interpreted by this Court above, the Tribunal can direct that the insurer is liable to be reimbursed by the insured for the compensation and other amounts which it has been compelled to pay to the third party under the award of the Tribunal. Such determination of claim by the Tribunal will be enforceable and the money found due to the insurer from the insured will be recoverable on a certificate issued by the Tribunal to the Collector in the same manner under Section 174 of the Act as arrears of land revenue. The certificate will be issued for the recovery as arrears of land revenue only if, as required by sub-section (3) of Section 168 of the Act the insured fails to deposit the amount awarded in favour of the insurer within thirty days from the date of announcement of the award by the Tribunal.” 13. In view thereof, the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants deserves acceptance, whereby though the Insurance Company is entitled to avoid its liability, however, the deceased being a third party the Insurance Company would first pay the amount of compensation to the claimants and then recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. 14. In view thereof, the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants deserves acceptance, whereby though the Insurance Company is entitled to avoid its liability, however, the deceased being a third party the Insurance Company would first pay the amount of compensation to the claimants and then recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. 14. So far as the submission made by learned counsel for the Insurance Company regarding the award having been passed in the year 1999 is concerned, the law as enunciated by Hon'ble Supreme Court cannot be said to be prospective so as to not apply to the pending cases and, therefore, the submission cannot be accepted. 15. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the amount awarded by the Tribunal does not bear any reasons for calculating the dependency at Rs.1,500/- per month only as it was a specific case of the claimant that deceased was in service of the Roadways for over 20 years and his monthly income was Rs.3,000/-. Once the income of the deceased is taken at Rs.3,000/- and the claimants are four, the deduction could only be ¼th. Further the very fact that the deceased was in employment for over 20 years, the said employment being stable and the age of deceased being 50 years, he was entitled to grant of future prospects @ 30% of his income. Further the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is also contrary to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), which should be 13 instead of 11. In view of the above, the amount towards loss of income would be Rs.3,000 + 900 – 975 = 2925 x 12 x 13 = Rs. 4,56,300/-. 16. Further the award of amount towards the loss of consortium and loss of love & affection to the wife and children at Rs.4,000/- each is also on the lower side, which is enhanced to Rs.25,000/- for loss of consortium and Rs.10,000/- each to the children towards loss of love & affection. 17. The award of compensation towards funeral expenses does not call for any interference. 18. Consequently, the appellants would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.5,13,300/-. The claimants would also be entitled to interest @ 7% per annum from the date of application i.e. 28.07.1992 till the date of actual payment. 19. 17. The award of compensation towards funeral expenses does not call for any interference. 18. Consequently, the appellants would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.5,13,300/-. The claimants would also be entitled to interest @ 7% per annum from the date of application i.e. 28.07.1992 till the date of actual payment. 19. It is made clear that as from the record it appears that except for a sum of Rs.25,000/- as interim compensation, no amount under the award has been paid to the appellants- claimants, the entire amount of compensation of Rs.5,13,300/- would carry the interest @ 7% per annum. However, in case any amount has been paid under the award to the claimants along with interest as directed by the Tribunal to the said extent, the award shall not be affected. 20. The amount shall be paid by the respondent-Insurance Company to the appellants and Insurance Company would be free to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle and the order passed by this Court itself would operate as a decree and the respondent- Insurance Company would not be required to take any further proceedings except for executing the present order for recovery from the owner. 21. In view of the above discussion, the appeal filed by the appellants is partly allowed. The award impugned is modified to the extent that instead of a sum of Rs.2,16,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants would be entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.5,13,300/- along with interest @ 7% per annum, subject to the directions contained hereinbefore. 22. The amount of compensation would be distributed among the claimants whereby the appellant No. 1 Smt. Bhikhi would be entitled to 70% of the amount of compensation along with interest and three children of deceased-would be entitled to 10% each of the amount with interest. 23. In view of the fact that much time has already passed from the date of accident, the amount would be paid in the saving bank accounts of the claimants. 24. The Insurance Company would first make payment of amount of compensation to the appellants and then recover the same in terms of the direction contained hereinbefore. 25. The amount of compensation be paid to the appellants within a period of six weeks from the date of this judgment.