JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. Learned counsel for the parties requested that preparation of paper book be dispensed with and appeal be heard and decided on the basis of perusal of lower court record and record made available with appeal. Since, only two short points are involved which are basically legal in nature, hence, we proceed accordingly. 3. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (hereinafter referred to as Act 1988) has been filed by Insurance Company-respondent no. 4 against award dated 31st October, 2000 passed by District Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal) in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 80 of 1989, awarding compensation of Rs 7,30,000/- to claimants-respondents. 4. Sri A.K. Sinha, learned counsel for appellant assails the aforesaid judgment on two grounds. Firstly, driver of Truck No. DEL 5288 did not possess a valid licence to drive heavy vehicle instead he had valid licence only for light vehicles. The learned counsel has relied on Sections 3 and 7 of Act 1988. Secondly, having regard to age of the deceased, being 41 years, in view of judgment in Sarla Verma and others Vs Delhi Transport Corporation and Another (2009) 6 SCC 121 , multiplier of 15, awarded in the instant case is not correct. 5. Thus, there are only two points for determination for deciding this appeal: (i) Whether driver of tortfeasor vehicle did not possess valid driving licence and on account thereof, there was breach of condition of insurance policy rendering appellant not liable to pay compensation. (ii) Whether multiplier applied by Tribunal is correct or needs modification. 6. Photocopy of driving licence has been placed on record which shows that it was issued to one, Mohabbat Ali S/o Hakim Ali on 22.10.1992 and marked valid for following categories: (i) Motorcycle with gear (ii) Light motor vehicle. 7. The term 'licence' is defined under Section 2 (10) of Act 1988 and reads as under: "driving licence means the licence issued by a competent authority under Chapter II authorizing the person specified therein to drive, otherwise than as a learner, a motor vehicle or a motor vehicle of any specified class or description" 8. Chapter 2 contains Sections 3 to 28, dealing with the subject of licensing of drivers of motor vehicles. Chapter 2 contains Sections 3 to 28, dealing with the subject of licensing of drivers of motor vehicles. For our purposes we may refer hereat Sections 3, 9 and 10 of Act 1988 as under:- Section 3-. Necessity for driving licence:-(1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorising him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle [other than a motor cab [or motor cycle] hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under sub-section (2) of section 75] unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do. (2) The conditions subject to which sub-section (1) shall not apply to a person receiving instructions in driving a motor vehicle shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government. Section 9. Grant of driving licence. (1) Any person who is not for the time being disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence may apply to the licensing authority having jurisdiction in the area-- (i) in which he ordinarily resides or carries on business, or (ii) in which the school or establishment referred to in section 12 from where he is receiving or has received instruction in driving a motor vehicle is situated, for the issue to him of a driving licence. (2) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be in such form and shall be accompanied by such fee and such documents as may be prescribed by the Central Government. (2) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be in such form and shall be accompanied by such fee and such documents as may be prescribed by the Central Government. (3) If the applicant passes such test as may be prescribed by the Central Government, he shall be issued the driving licence: Provided that no such test shall be necessary where the applicant produces proof to show that-- (a) (i) the applicant has previously held a driving licence to drive such class of vehicle and that the period between the date of expiry of that licence and the date of the application does not exceed five years, or (ii) the applicant holds or has previously held a driving licence to drive such class of vehicle issued under Section 18, or (iii) the applicant holds a driving licence to drive such class of vehicle issued by a competent authority of any country outside India, subject to the condition that the applicant complies with the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 8, (b) the applicant is not suffering from any disability which is likely to cause the driving by him to be a source of danger to the public; and the licensing authority may, for that purpose, require the applicant to produce a medical certificate in the same form and in the same manner as is referred to in sub-section (3) of section 8 : Provided further that where the application is for a driving licence to drive a motor vehicle (not being a transport vehicle), the licensing authority may exempt the applicant from the test of competence to drive a vehicle prescribed under this sub-section, if the applicant possesses a driving certificate issued by any institution recognized in this behalf by the State Government. (4) Where the application is for a licence to drive a transport vehicle, no such authorisation shall be granted to any applicant unless he possesses such minimum educational qualification as may be prescribed by the Central Government and a driving certificate issued by a school or establishment referred to in section 12. (4) Where the application is for a licence to drive a transport vehicle, no such authorisation shall be granted to any applicant unless he possesses such minimum educational qualification as may be prescribed by the Central Government and a driving certificate issued by a school or establishment referred to in section 12. (5) Where the applicant does not pass the test, he may be permitted to re-appear for the test after a period of seven days: Provided that where the applicant does not pass the test even after three appearances, he shall not be qualified to re-appear for such test before the expiry of a period of sixty days from the date of last such test. (6) The test of competence to drive shall be carried out in a vehicle of the type to which the application refers: Provided that a person who passed a test in driving a motor cycle with gear shall be deemed also to have passed a test in driving a motor cycle without gear. (7) When any application has been duly made to the appropriate licensing authority and the applicant has satisfied such authority of his competence to drive, the licensing authority shall issue the applicant a driving licence unless the applicant is for the time being disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence: Provided that a licensing authority may issue a driving licence to drive a motor cycle or a light motor vehicle notwithstanding that it is not the appropriate licensing authority, if the licensing authority is satisfied that there is good and sufficient reason for the applicant's inability to apply to the appropriate licensing authority: Provided further that the licensing authority shall not issue a new driving licence to the applicant, if he had previously held a driving licence, unless it is satisfied that there is good and sufficient reason for his inability to obtain a duplicate copy of his former licence. (8) If the licensing authority is satisfied, after giving the applicant an opportunity of being heard, that he-- (a) is a habitual criminal or a habitual drunkard; or (b) is a habitual addict to any narcotic drug or phychotropic substance within the meaning of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985); or (c) is a person whose licence to drive any motor vehicle has, at any time earlier, been revoked, it may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, make an order refusing to issue a driving licence to such person and any person aggrieved by an order made by a licensing authority under this sub-section may, within thirty days of the receipt of the order, appeal to the prescribed authority. (9) Any driving licence for driving a motor cycle in force immediately before the commencement of this Act shall, after such commencement, be deemed to be effective for driving a motor cycle with or without gear. Section 10. Form and contents of licences to drive. - (1) Every learner's licence and driving licence, except a driving licence issued under section 18, shall be in such form and shall contain such information as may be prescribed by the Central Government. (2) A learner's licence or, as the case may be, driving licence shall also be expressed as entitling the holder to drive a motor vehicle of one or more of the following classes, namely:- (a) motor cycle without gear; (b) motor cycle with gear; (c) invalid carriage; (d) light motor vehicle; (e) transport vehicle; (i) road-roller; (j) motor vehicle of a specified description. 9. Section 10(2) shows that in the category of "light motor vehicle" it does not make any distinction between goods vehicle or passenger vehicle. The distinction in the two categories of vehicles is in respect to "medium" and "heavy" vehicles but not in respect to "light motor vehicles". Now at this stage, we may also refer to the definition of "light motor vehicle" contained in Section 2 sub-Section 21 which reads as under:- "light motor vehicle means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road-roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500] kilograms" 10. There are other definitions, like "medium goods vehicle" under Section 2(23), "medium passenger motor vehicle" under Section 2 (24), "heavy goods vehicle" under Section 2 (16), "heavy passenger motor vehicle" under Section 2 (17) and for making our point more specific, it would be appropriate to re-produce the above definitions also here:- Section 2(16) "heavy goods vehicle" means any goods carriage the gross-vehicle weight of which, or a tractor or a road-roller the unladen weight of either of which, exceeds 12,000 Kilograms; Section 2(17) "heavy passenger motor vehicle" means any public service vehicle or private service vehicle or educational institution bus or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of any of which, or a motor car the unladen weight of which, exceeds 12,000 kilograms; Section 2(23) "medium goods vehicle" means any goods carriage other than a light motor vehicle or a heavy goods vehicle; Section 2(24) "medium passenger motor vehicle" means any public service vehicle or private service vehicle, or educational institution bus other than a motor cycle, invalid carriage, light motor vehicle or heavy passenger motor vehicle; 11. A bare reading of these provisions make it clear that the term "light motor vehicle" did not exclude any "goods vehicle" but it covers all kinds of "transport vehicles" whether carrying goods or passengers etc, subject to unladen weight upto 7500 kilogram. 12. This is fortified from the word "transport vehicle" defined under Section 2(47) which reads as under: "transport vehicle means a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle" 13. There are some amendments made in 2001 and 2007 in the Act but we are not concerned with the same. Since in the present case, accident is of 24th August, 1999 and therefore we are referring to the provisions as stood on that date. 14. Under Section 10(2), the term "transport vehicle" was separately inserted by amendment Act 54 of 1994 with effect from 14.11.1994. In the present case, driving licence issued to Mohabbat Ali was an old one. Though it renewed in 1995 but this amended provision was not clarified or mentioned therein. Therefore, it cannot be said that owner of vehicle had not taken requisite precaution and verified whether driver possess a valid licence or not. 15. In the present case, driving licence issued to Mohabbat Ali was an old one. Though it renewed in 1995 but this amended provision was not clarified or mentioned therein. Therefore, it cannot be said that owner of vehicle had not taken requisite precaution and verified whether driver possess a valid licence or not. 15. In the present case, the word 'truck' has been used but it has not been clarified, whether it was a small truck or bigger truck and whether within the category of a vehicle other than "light motor vehicles" or not. When trucks are available in various sizes and different chassis, by merely stating that one was driving a truck, therefore, it was not a "light motor vehicle" is not sufficient. No evidence has been brought on record to show that truck in question was in the category of "medium" or "heavy goods vehicle". Onus to show that there was a breach of condition of policy was upon Insurance Company. It was incumbent upon it to adduce adequate evidence to clear everything and show expressly that there was a breach of condition of insurance policy. 16. With regard to the definition of "light motor vehicle" under Section 2(21) of Act 1988, in Ashok Gangadhar Maratha Vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd (1999) 6 SCC 620 , Court held:- "We have the definition of" heavy goods vehicle" and "medium goods vehicle". There is no definition of "light goods vehicle". Instead the definition is of "light motor vehicle". If we apply the definition of a "light motor vehicle" as given in clause (21) of Section 2 of the Act to mean a "transport vehicle" which in turn means a "goods carriage" then we have nowhere the definition of a "light motor vehicle" without it being a "goods carriage". Section 2 of the Act begins with the words "unless in this Act the context otherwise requires". We have, therefore, to give a meaningful interpretation to "light motor vehicle" as given in clause (21). Clause (e) of Rule 2 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 defines "non-transport vehicle" to mean a motor vehicle which is not a transport vehicle (clause (e) renumbered as clause (h) by 1993 Amendment to Rules). This definition would, therefore, take out of the definition of "transport vehicle" as given in clause (21) light motor vehicles which are not goods carriage." 17. This definition would, therefore, take out of the definition of "transport vehicle" as given in clause (21) light motor vehicles which are not goods carriage." 17. In National Insurance Company limited Vs. Swaran Singh and others (2004) 3 SCC 297 it was held that, a person, if has been given a licence for a particular type of vehicle, he can not be said to have no licence for driving another type of vehicle which is of the same category but of a different type. This was reiterated in Oriental Insurance Limited Vs. Zaharulnisha and others (2008) 12 SCC 385 . In National Insurance Company limited Vs. Swaran Singh (Supra) it was also held that Insurer, in order to avoid its liability, is not only required to show that conditions laid down under Section 149(2)(a) or (b) are satisfied, but, further is required to establish that there has been a breach on the part of the insured. It was held that so far as the third party is concerned, it is entitled to have its claim satisfied from the Insurer notwithstanding that Insurer may be entitled to avoid or to cancel policy or may, in fact, have done so. It was held that holding of a valid driving licence is one of the conditions of contract of Insurance. Driving a vehicle without valid driving licence is an offence. However, whether third party involved in an accident is entitled to the amount of compensation granted by Tribunal, although, driver of the vehicle at the relevant time might not have a valid driving licence but would be entitled to recover the same from the owner of driver thereof, Court held, where insured relying upon the provisions of violation of law by insured take an exception to pay the insured or a third party, they must prove a willful violation of law by Insured. In some cases, violation of criminal law particularly violation of provisions of Act 1988 may result in absolving the insurer but same may not necessarily hold good in the case of a third party. In any event exception applies only to the act done intentionally or so recklessly as to denote that the assured did not care what the consequences on his act might be. Similar view was also taken in Kulwant Singh & others Vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (2015) 2 SCC 186 . 18. In any event exception applies only to the act done intentionally or so recklessly as to denote that the assured did not care what the consequences on his act might be. Similar view was also taken in Kulwant Singh & others Vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (2015) 2 SCC 186 . 18. The provisions of sub-Sections 4 and 5 of Section 149 of Act 1988 may be considered as to the liability of the Insurer to satisfy decree at the first instance. The liability of Insurer is a statutory one. The liability of Insurer to satisfy decree passed in favour of third party is also statutory. 19. The learned counsel for appellant contended that in the absence of authorization for endorsement of the kind of vehicle it must be held that the driver did not possess valid driving licence. Here we find that Tribunal has recorded finding as under:- "Respondent no. 4, the Insurance company has pleaded that the driver of truck no. DEL-5288 had no valid driving licence. Respondents 1 to 3 have pleaded that the driver possessed a valid driving licence on the date of accident. Copy of the driving licence of respondent no. 3 was supplied to the learned counsel for Insurance Company, but no evidence has been led to prove that the licence of PW-3 was not genuine. There is no evidence on record to prove that respondent no. 3 did not possess a valid driving licence at the time of accident. Issue is answered accordingly." 20. From the perusal of document on record we find that there is an endorsement made on 23rd August, 1995, with regard to "goods and heavy transport vehicle" and there is nothing on record to show that the said endorsement was not genuine. Therefore, even on facts it is difficult to hold that driving licence in question was not valid or that owner of vehicle intentionally breached any condition of insurance policy. 20(A) Hence, we do not find any error in the findings recorded by Tribunal holding that driving licence in question was valid, we answer question-1 against appellant. 21. Now coming to the second question, we find that the age of deceased has been accepted by Tribunal as 41 years and that being so, as per judgment in Sarla Verma and others Vs Delhi Transport Corporation and Another (2009) 6 SCC 121 , appropriate multiplier would be 14. 21. Now coming to the second question, we find that the age of deceased has been accepted by Tribunal as 41 years and that being so, as per judgment in Sarla Verma and others Vs Delhi Transport Corporation and Another (2009) 6 SCC 121 , appropriate multiplier would be 14. The impugned award of judgment is accordingly modified to the extent that amount of compensation shall be computed by applying multiplier of 14 and not 15. 22. Appeal is partly allowed to the extent as above. If amount at enhanced rate has already been paid, the same may be recovered from the owner. 23. There shall be no order as to cost.