JUDGMENT S.K. Dubey, J. 1. The order passed in this appeal will also govern the disposal of M.A. No. 323 of 1995 (Shamsher Khan v. Mohd. Karim Khan). This is claimants' appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') against the award dated 29.11.1994 passed in Claim Case No. 12 of 1991 by the Vth Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are thus: On 6.3.1991, the deceased Mohd. Ismail was travelling as a passenger in autorickshaw No. MPO 23-B-1005 owned and driven by respondent No. 1 and insured with respondent No. 2. Due to the negligent driving, the autorickshaw turned turtle as a result of which Mohd. Ismail received severe injuries. He was taken to D.K. Hospital but could not survive. The widow Koushar Suraiya, who died during the pendency of the application under Section 166 of the Act, for compensation along with appellants as legal representatives of the deceased claimed compensation of Rs. 5,53,000 for the death of Mohd. Ismail caused in motor accident. The Tribunal, after holding that the accident was caused due to negligent driving of autorickshaw, awarded the compensation of Rs. 1,32,000, with interest thereon at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application, that is, 3.5.1991 till realisation. The respondent No. 1 was made liable to pay the compensation, absolving the respondent No. 2, as the respondent No. 1 was not holding a valid licence. 3. Mr. AloK Aradhe, learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that the compensation awarded is not just and fair. The deceased was aged 47 years and was employed in Government Primary School at Ramnagar, Raipur, whose gross pay was Rs. 2,360 as is proved by Exh. A-1. The Tribunal estimated the dependency at Rs. 1,100 per month, yearly Rs. 13,200, in that a multiplier of 10 was applied, the amount was worked out to Rs. 1,32,000. The Tribunal had not taken into account the future prospects of advancement in life and career which also ought to have been sounded in terms of money to augment the multiplicand; multiplier selected is also on the lower side. Besides the conventional amount for consortium and loss of estate and a sum of Rs. 2,000 towards funeral expenses ought to have been awarded. Besides the conventional amount for consortium and loss of estate and a sum of Rs. 2,000 towards funeral expenses ought to have been awarded. A decision of the Supreme Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corpn. v. Susamma Thomas, 1994 ACJ 1 (SC), was cited. Absolvement of the respondent No. 2 was challenged as illegal because the owner himself was driving who was holding valid driving licence, Exh. A-6, to drive light motor vehicles. It merely did not bear the endorsement to drive the transport vehicle; but he was not disqualified to drive the transport vehicle, that is, autorickshaw, which the Tribunal has not taken into consideration. 4. Mr. Awadh Tripathi, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1, though submitted that the award of compensation is just and fair and does not call for enhancement but challenged the finding of the Tribunal exonerating the insurance company from its liability to pay compensation. It was submitted that the policy of insurance, Exh. D-1, was for contract carriage. It was autorickshaw, a light motor vehicle permitted to carry 3 passengers besides the driver. The policy specifies the persons who arc entitled to drive, which reads thus: Persons or classes of persons entitled to drive: Any of the following -- (a) The insured. (b) Any other person who is driving on insured's order or with his permission. Provided that the person driving holds or had held and has not been disqualified from holding an effective driving licence with all the required endorsements thereon as per the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the rules made thereunder for the time being in force to drive the category of motor vehicle insured here-under. The insured was the driver, who was possessed of driving licence of light motor vehicle and was not disqualified to drive a light transport vehicle, therefore, the insurance company cannot escape its liability. Counsel cited the decisions in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Devidas, 1986 ACJ 312 (MP); National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Prem Narayan Saku, 1996 MPLJ 399 ; unreported decisions of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Batulan Bi, M.A, No. 675 of 1994, decided on 31.7.1997; and United India Insurance Co, Ltd. v. Sudama, M.A. No. 720 of 1995, decided on 25.6.1997; and a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Sanjay Gupta v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 1997 ACJ 216 (Allahabad). 5. Mr. Ltd. v. Batulan Bi, M.A, No. 675 of 1994, decided on 31.7.1997; and United India Insurance Co, Ltd. v. Sudama, M.A. No. 720 of 1995, decided on 25.6.1997; and a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Sanjay Gupta v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 1997 ACJ 216 (Allahabad). 5. Mr. K.L. Raj, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 submitted that, true the respondent No. 1 was holding a driving licence to drive light motor vehicle but it did not bear endorsement of the Licensing Authority authorising him to drive the transport vehicle. Though autorickshaw is a light motor vehicle but it was motor cab under Section 2(25) of the Act constructed or adapted to carry not more than six passengers, excluding the driver for hire or reward. Motor cab is included in the definition of 'public service vehicle' under Section 2(35) of the Act, which is a transport vehicle under Section 2(47) of the Act. Therefore, an endorsement on the licence authorising the respondent No. 1 to drive a transport vehicle was essential. Hence, the insured was not holding a valid licence, therefore, the Tribunal exonerated the respondent No. 2 from its liability. Counsel cited the decision of Gujarat High Court in Manohar Jamatmal Sindhi v. Ranguba, 1994 ACJ 1280 (Gujarat). 6. First we shall take up the grievance of the appellants in relation to compensation. It is not disputed that the deceased was in regular employment and was drawing a salary of Rs. 2,360 per month. He would have definitely earned increments if not promotion. Therefore, his earning is taken at Rs. 3,000; from that one-third is deducted towards his personal living expenses and a further sum of Rs. 500 for out of the pocket expenses, the dependency would not be less than Rs. 1,500 per month, yearly Rs. 18,000; to that a multiplier of 10 is applied, the amount would work out to Rs. 1,80,000 besides Rs. 8,000 for loss of estate and Rs. 2,000 for funeral expenses. Thus the total would come to Rs. 1,90,000 which the appellants would be entitled to get with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application till realisation. Re: Liability of Insurance Company 7. It is not in dispute that the auto-ricksnaw was a motor cab and was a transport vehicle as defined in Section 2(47) of the Act. 1,90,000 which the appellants would be entitled to get with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application till realisation. Re: Liability of Insurance Company 7. It is not in dispute that the auto-ricksnaw was a motor cab and was a transport vehicle as defined in Section 2(47) of the Act. It is also not in dispute that the insured himself was driving the auto-rickshaw, a light motor vehicle as defined in Section 2(21) of the Act. He had the licence to drive a light motor vehicle. Section 2(10) defines 'driving licence' as the licence issued by a Competent authority under Chapter II authorising the person specified therein to drive, otherwise than as a learner, a motor vehicle or a motor vehicle of any specified class or description. Chapter II deals with licensing of drivers of motor vehicles, of which Sections 3 and 10 are relevant for the purposes of this case, which we quote-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. XXX XXX XXX 10. Form and contents of licences to drive.-(1) Every learner's licence and driving licence, except a driving licenceissued 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) medium goods vehicle; (f) medium passenger motor vehicle; (g) heavy goods vehicle; (h) heavy passenger motor vehicle; (i) road-roller; (j) motor vehicle of a specified description. 8. 8. The respondent No. 1 possessed the licence of the class of the vehicle specified in Clause (d) of Section 10. Section 10 does not speak of any endorsement. However, Section 3 lays down that no person shall drive a motor vehicle in any pubiic 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 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. It is true that if there is no authorisation on the driving licence to drive the transport vehicle as required by Section 3 such person cannot be said to be possessed of a valid driving licence to drive transport vehicle and, therefore, the insurer of such vehicle would not be liable to pay compensation or to indemnify the insured. [See the decision of Gujarat High Court in Manohar Jamatmal Sindhi v. Ranguba, 1994 ACJ 1280 (Gujarat)], referred by this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sudama, MA. No. 720 of 1995, decided on 25.6.1997. 9. In the circumstances when the insured owner himself was driving the vehicle, who was in possession of the driving licence, whether the insurance company can absolve itself from the liability is to be seen in terms of the valid defence available. Under Section 149 of the Act as Sub-clause (ii) of Clause (a) of Sub-section (2) prescribes the condition excluding driving by a named person or persons or by any person who is not only duly licensed, or by any person who has been disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence during the period of disqualification. It is not the defence of the respondent No. 2 that the respondent No. 1 was disqualified for holding a driving licence for driving a transport vehicle. A Division Bench of this Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bare Lal, 1998 ACJ 248 (MP), where the accident was caused by a truck and the driver of the said truck was holding a licence to drive light motor vehicle which had no special authorisation to drive heavy motor vehicle, took the view, placing reliance on the decision in B. V. Nagaraju v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bare Lal, 1998 ACJ 248 (MP), where the accident was caused by a truck and the driver of the said truck was holding a licence to drive light motor vehicle which had no special authorisation to drive heavy motor vehicle, took the view, placing reliance on the decision in B. V. Nagaraju v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 1996 ACJ 1178 (SC) and Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kokilaben Chandra-vadan, 1987 ACJ 411 (SC), that as the insurance company did not lead any evidence that the driver was disqualified to hold or obtain the driving licence to drive a transport vehicle, it cannot escape its liability to pay the compensation or to indemnify the insured. This decision was followed by this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sudama, M.A. No. 720 of 1995, decided on 25.6.1997. Hence we are of the view that as the vehicle was being driven by the insured himself who was possessed of the valid licence to drive light motor vehicle and was not disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence to drive a transport vehicle, the autorickshaw being light motor vehicle, the respondent No. 2 cannot escape from the liability. 10. In the circumstances, the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Manohar Jamatmal Sindhi's case, 1994 ACJ 1280 (Gujarat), is of no help to respondent No. 2 wherein the case relates to driver who was not having a licence to drive vehicle as a paid employee and was authorised to drive light motor vehicle which had no authorisation to drive the transport vehicle. 11. As an upshot the award of the Tribunal shall stand substituted. The appellants shall be entitled to Rs. 1,90,000 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application till realisation. The respondent No. 2 shall deposit the amount with accrued interest less the amount already deposited by it within a period of two months from the date of supply of certified copy failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum. On deposit the amount shall be disbursed keeping in mind the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court. 12. In result, the appeals are allowed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 1,500, if pre-certified. C.C. as per rules.