JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The Insurer of the offending vehicle, has, instituted the instant appeal before this Court, wherethrough, it, casts a challenge, upon, the award pronounced by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Mandi, H.P., upon, Claim Petition No. 35/2011, whereunder, compensation amount comprised, in, a sum of Rs. 9,83,400/- along with interest accrued thereon, at the rate of 7.5% per annum, commencing from, the date of petition till realization thereof, stood, assessed, vis-avis, the disabled claimant, and, the apposite indemnificatory liability thereof, was, fastened upon the insurer. 2. The learned counsel appearing, for the insurance company, does not contest the validity of the affirmative findings recorded by the learned tribunal, upon, the issue appertaining to the factum of the claimant receiving, upon his person, the apt disabling injuries, in sequel to his being struck by the offending scooter, given, its being provenly driven in a rash and negligent manner by respondent No.1. However, he rears, a, vigorous contention before this Court, (i) that with the apt driving licence, borne in Ex.RW1/B, making, a, clear pronouncement, vis-a-vis, its holder, being authorized to drive "LMV Transport", whereas, with the apt vehicle rather falling, in, a contradistinct therewith category, inasmuch, as it being, a, two wheeler, (ii) thereupon, respondent No.2, one Dinesh Kumar, stood barred, to drive the offending scooter, (iii) given a person, who, successfully qualifies a driving test, for hence enabling him to drive, a motor cycle with gear, though, is deemed fit to qualify a test, for, hence also being enabled, to, drive motor cycle without gear, (iv) thereupon, with the apt qualifying test(s) for hence testing the efficiency, of, the apt driver for rather driving a two wheeler, and for hence, his efficiently driving, a, four wheeler, rather being contradistinct, (v) whereupon, with obviously, respondent No.2 herein, one Dinesh Kumar, though successfully qualified the test, for, driving a four wheeler, per se, thereupon, his not being deemed fit, to, also qualify the apt efficiency test, for, his being enabled, to, also drive a two wheeler, in category whereof, the, offending scooter rather falls. In making the aforesaid submission, the learned counsel appearing for the insurer, has, placed reliance, upon, a judgment of this Court, rendered in a case titled as New India Insurance Company vs. Tika Ram , (2011) 3 ShimLC 95 , and, has also placed reliance, upon, a judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court, rendered in a case titled as Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Zaharulnisha and others , (2008) 12 SCC 385 . A reading of the apt paragraph No.5, occurring in Tika Ram''s case , paragraph whereof stand extracted hereinafter:- "5. The Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Zaharulnisha and others , (2008) 12 SCC 385 also held that a person having driving licence of Heavy Motor Vehicle cannot be said to hold a valid driving licence to drive a Scooter." (a) does support the aforesaid submission, and, signification thereof, is, qua the insurer rather proving the trite factum, of, hence the terms and conditions, of, the insurance policy being evidently breached, besides its also proving qua, the, fastening of the apt indemnificatory liability, upon it, being visited hence with an inherent fallacy. Consequently, the apt indemnificatory liability is enjoined to be fastened, upon, the owner of the offending vehicle, who, stands impleaded herein as respondent No.3. 3. The claimant, in sequel, to the injuries suffered by him, in a motor vehicle accident, caused by the rash and negligent manner of driving, of, the offending scooter by respondent No.2 herein, stand entailed with, the apt disability, as, pronounced in Ex.PW4/A. The per centum of disability, is, reflected therein to be, a, 41 per centum, hence, permanent disability, vis-a-vis, the right lower limb. The aforesaid disability certificate stands proven, by PW-4. Even though, PW-4 was subjected, to, a rigorous cross-examination, by the learned counsel for the insurer, yet no suggestion stood meted to him, by the apt counsel for the insurer, for falsifying the pronouncements, borne therein, vis-a-vis, the disability quantified therein at 41%, and, it appertaining to the right lower limb, besides it being permanent in nature. The claimant had in his testification borne in Ex.PW2/A, rendered firm echoings qua his hitherto being engaged, in, masonry job. The aforesaid echoings borne in his testification, were not efficaciously disproven. The claimant had in his testification borne in Ex.PW2/A, rendered firm echoings qua his hitherto being engaged, in, masonry job. The aforesaid echoings borne in his testification, were not efficaciously disproven. Consequently, given an apt proven 41% permanent disability, of, the right lower limb, standing entailed, upon, the claimant, and, upon its standing construed, in, entwinement with the hitherto earnings reared by him, from, his avocation as a mason, importantly also when, the, facile free movements, of, the right lower limb, is imperative for enabling the claimant, to, efficiently perform, his hitherto avocation of a mason, and, also concomitantly, for, rather enabling him to rear an income therefrom. Contrarily, with the facile efficient movement, of, his right lower limb, rather being impeded, by the disability entailed, upon him, (i) and, no evidence standing adduced by the insurer qua, dehors, the disability, in, the aforesaid quantum entailed, upon, the claimant, and, it being visited, upon, a important member of his limb, rather not impacting, his efficiently performing his apposite avocation, as a mason, (ii) nor evidence being adduced qua the disability entailed upon the claimant, not, rendering him incapacitated to perform the apt masonry work(s), (iii) thereupon, the per centum of the disability entailed, upon, the claimant, is concluded to be disempowering him, to rear any income from his hitherto avocation as a mason. Consequently, the computation by the learned tribunal, of, his drawing an income of Rs. 10,000/- per month from his apt avocation, and, also in the learned tribunal after bearing in mind the afore per centum of disability, its hence computing compensation, in a sum of Rs. 9 lacs, under, the head "loss of future income", cannot, be construed to have hence erred. 4. Even though, this Court has concluded for reason aforesaid, qua the fastening of the apt indemnificatory liability, upon, the insurer hence suffering from, a, gross error. Nonetheless, in consonance with the verdicts of the Hon''ble Apex Court rendered in case titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur , (2004) 2 SCC 1 as also in a case titled as Deedappa v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. , (2008) 1 SCC(Cri) 517, the insurer company shall satisfy the award, and, shall have the right to, in accordance with law, recover, the, amount deposited by it, along with interest, from, the owner of the vehicle i.e. respondent No.3 herein. 5. Ltd. , (2008) 1 SCC(Cri) 517, the insurer company shall satisfy the award, and, shall have the right to, in accordance with law, recover, the, amount deposited by it, along with interest, from, the owner of the vehicle i.e. respondent No.3 herein. 5. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the insurer is partly allowed, and, the impugned award, is, in the aforesaid manner, hence modified. Records be sent back forthwith.