JUDGMENT Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter has been heard finally. 2. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company claiming the following reliefs: "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this appeal may kindly be allowed and the impugned judgment and award dated 14.07.2000 passed by the learned Judge, MACT, Pali in MACT case No.86/96 may kindly be quashed and accordingly the claims petition filed by the claimants may kindly be dismissed as against the appellant-company. Any other appropriate order which may be deemed just and proper in the circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the appellant-company. The cost be also awarded to the appellant-company." 3. The only bone of contention in the present matter raised by learned counsel for appellant-Insurance Company is that the vehicle in question was a heavy motor vehicle and the license possessed by the driver was that of light motor vehicle. 4. Learned counsel for appellant-Insurance Company submits that the liability has been fastened upon the Insurance Company only on the ground that a person having license of light motor vehicle with his experience will be entitled to drive the Heavy Motor Vehicle. As per learned counsel for the appellantInsurance Company such experience cannot substitute the provisions of law. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has relied upon the judgment rendered by this Hon'ble Court in the matter of Vela and Anr. Vs. Babu @ Badiya and Ors.,2012 RAR 9 (Raj.) , relevant portion whereof reads as under: "10. A perusal of the driving license of driver-Babu, respondent No.1 herein, placed on record before the tribunal as Ex.7 and Ex.D/1 reveals that the respondent No.1 was only authorized to drive light motor vehicle other than transport vehicle and therefore, indisputably, he was not holding any valid license to drive the heavy goods vehicle. The certificate of registration of vehicle placed on record as Ex.5 reveals that the unladed weight of the vehicle involved in the accident was 5525 kgs, whereas the laden weight 15,660 kgs. which further stands fortified from the goods permit (Ex.D/2) issued in favour of the owner of the vehicle, respondent No.2 herein, by the concerned transport authority. The certificate of registration of vehicle placed on record as Ex.5 reveals that the unladed weight of the vehicle involved in the accident was 5525 kgs, whereas the laden weight 15,660 kgs. which further stands fortified from the goods permit (Ex.D/2) issued in favour of the owner of the vehicle, respondent No.2 herein, by the concerned transport authority. It is pertinent to note that even in the insurance policy (Ex.D/1), the gross weight of the vehicle is shown to be 16,200 kgs. and accordingly, higher premium payable for the vehicle with the gross weight more than 12000 kgs. was charged from the insured. Suffice it to say that on the basis of the evidence on record, it is manifestly clear the vehicle involved in the accident was heavy goods vehicle and since the driver of the vehicle, respondent No.1 herein, was not holding valid license to drive heavy goods vehicle and therefore, it is a clear case of breach of policy conditions. Thus, the finding arrived at by the tribunal on the issue No.3 and consequently, the exoneration of the insurance company from the liability cannot be faulted with." 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the learned Tribunal has rightly considered the long experience of the driver, while holding him entitled for driving the heavy motor vehicle. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case alongwith the precedent law cited at the Bar, this Court finds that it is a settled law including the precedent law cited that a person not having a valid driving license of an equivalent or parallel category of vehicle, shall not be entitled to drive that vehicle. The exception of the precedent law laid down by the Apex Court in Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2017) 14 SCC 663 , is not applicable in the present case as in this case, the vehicle being driven and the license being possessed were not of equivalent vehicles having similar weight. Admittedly, the vehicle in question was heavy motor vehicle and the license was to drive the light motor vehicle. 8. However, this Court takes specific note of the fact that the claimants have already been awarded the compensation. Thus, while allowing the present misc. Admittedly, the vehicle in question was heavy motor vehicle and the license was to drive the light motor vehicle. 8. However, this Court takes specific note of the fact that the claimants have already been awarded the compensation. Thus, while allowing the present misc. appeal preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company and holding the Insurance Company not liable to pay the award amount, this Court gives liberty to the Insurance Company to recover from the owner, the amount, which has been awarded as compensation while adhering to the principles of pay and recover. 9. The present appeal stands allowed in the above terms. All the pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the learned Tribunal be sent back forthwith.