JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J. 1. Heard Sri V.C. Dixit for the Insurance company and Sri Sharve Singh for the claimant. None appears for the respondent - owner. 2. By way of this appeal, the Insurance company has felt aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Allahabad, in M.A.C.P. No.656 of 1995, awarding a sum of Rs.4,49,236/-. 3. The parties went to the trial and the Insurance company was held liable. The sole contentions raised before this Court is that the Insurance company could not have been directed to indemnify the insured as there was a breach of policy. 4. It is submitted that the driver had driving licence not of the kind for vehicle which he was driving. The submission is that the driving licence is not of a tempo but is of a vehicle which is not falling in the category of tempo despite that the Insurance company has been directed to pay the compensation. It is submitted that the policy speaks about only light motor vehicle whereas what he was driving was not a light motor vehicle but was a Vikram tempo, which is admittedly a commercial vehicle. 5. It is submitted that as the appellant has deposited the amount pursuant to the direction of this Court in this appeal, it be given recovery rights to recover from the owner the amount deposited, as there is breach of policy condition under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act'). The second contention is that the claim petition came to be dismissed in the year 2001 and was restored in 2008 and, therefore, they should not be made liable for payment of any interest during this interregnum period. The claim petition was filed in the year 1995. Thirdly, it is contended that the compensation awarded is much higher than that which could have been awarded. 6. It would be relevant for this Court to take the first issue first. While going through the facts as culled out from record, the Tribunal in its finding of this issue as to the breach of policy, has relied on 3 aspects (I) the driver had a licence to drive LMV namely light motor vehicle and has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. While going through the facts as culled out from record, the Tribunal in its finding of this issue as to the breach of policy, has relied on 3 aspects (I) the driver had a licence to drive LMV namely light motor vehicle and has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Lehru and others, JT 2003 (2) SC 595 and National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Swarn Singh and others, 2004 (1) TAC 321 and, therefore, the Tribunal held the Insurance company liable as the licence was a valid licence. I am unable to accept the submission of learned counsel Sri V.C. Dixit that a person holding driving licence of LMV cannot drive a commercial vehicle of the same category as the laden weight of the vehicle is such that it is a light motor vehicle as per the Act, 1988. Reference will have to be made to the latest decision of the Apex Court in Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, AIR 2017 SC 3668 and, therefore, once it is held that he was holding a licence of light motor vehicle as admitted by the Insurance company, they cannot avoid their liability. I need not delve further as it is a Full Bench judgment taking care of this issue. The laden weight prescribed of a tempo is also that of light motor vehicle and it is nobody's case that the vehicle was not a light motor vehicle. Hence, the submission of Sri Dixit cannot be accepted. 7. The next contention was never pleaded before the Tribunal. However, it goes without saying that the matter was dismissed for default in the year 2001 but as the record goes to show that an application was immediately made. Objection was raised by the Insurance company for restoration of the matter. It is a cardinal principle that matters under the Act, 1988, cannot be dismissed for default. Hence, the said submission also is rejected. This takes this Court to the question of compensation. The compensation awarded is as per the income of the deceased applying the right multiplier as per the principle enunciated in Section 163-A of the Act, 1988 and, therefore, no fault can be found with the judgment in question. 8. Hence, the said submission also is rejected. This takes this Court to the question of compensation. The compensation awarded is as per the income of the deceased applying the right multiplier as per the principle enunciated in Section 163-A of the Act, 1988 and, therefore, no fault can be found with the judgment in question. 8. The plea for requesting for recovery rights could have been given had the Insurance company proved that there was no driving licence or the vehicle was being driven at the relevant time by a person not authorized to drive any light motor vehicle as held in the case of Pappu and others Vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba and another, Civil Appeal No.20962 of 2017, decided on 19.1.2018, but it is not a case here and the same is rejected. I am fortified even in my view by the judgment of this Court in Feru Singh Vs. National Insurance Company Limited, F.A.F.O. No.143 of 2018, decided on 10.1.2018. 9. This appeal sans merit and is dismissed.