JUDGMENT Shambhoo Singh, J. 1. The claimant has filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded to him vide award dated 30.7.1997 passed by Addl. Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mandsaur, in Claim Case No. 8/96. 2. The appellant's case, in brief, was that on 26.12.1995 respondent No. 1 drove tempo No. M.P. 14-8-0583, belonging to respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 3, in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the appellant on bus-stand Mandsaur, as a result of which the appellant suffered grievous injuries. He was admitted in Mandsaur Hospital and thereafter he was shifted to Bombay at Sir Hurkisondas Nurrottamdas Hospital and Research Centre where he was operated and plate was fixed in his hip bone. He became permanently disabled. He filed claim case seeking compensation of Rs. 5,50,000/-. The respondents resisted the claim. The respondent No. 3 Insurance Company inter alia pleaded that respondent No. 1 had no valid driving licence and, therefore, it was not liable to pay compensation. The learned Tribunal on appreciation of evidence held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the tempo by respondent No. 1 and awarded compensation of Rs. 49,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum and directed respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to pay the same. 3. Mr. Z.A. Khan, Learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on lower side. The appellant had spent more than Rs. 50,000/- over his treatment, but the learned Tribunal awarded only Rs. 15,000/- therefor. He also submitted that the Tribunal also committed error in assessing the monthly earning of the appellant at Rs. 1,200/- per month. He was earning Rs. 2,000/- per month from the rope shop of Hemant Robe. He, therefore, prays for enhancement of compensation amount. He also contended that the Tribunal committed error in absolving the Insurance Company to pay compensation on the ground that respondent No. 1 had no valid driving licence. The tempo is a light motor vehicle and he was having light motor vehicle driving licence. Mr. Sharma Learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 opposed and Mr. S.S. Swami, Learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 Insurance Company supported the finding of the Tribunal with regard to exoneration of Insurance Company. They opposed enhancement of compensation amount. 4. The tempo is a light motor vehicle and he was having light motor vehicle driving licence. Mr. Sharma Learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 opposed and Mr. S.S. Swami, Learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 Insurance Company supported the finding of the Tribunal with regard to exoneration of Insurance Company. They opposed enhancement of compensation amount. 4. We considered the arguments advanced by Counsel for both sides and perused the record. The learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 15,000/- for treatment, after taking into consideration the cash-memos and also the fact that some bills had been (sic). It also awarded Rs. 5,000/- for going Bombay and awarded Rs. 5,000/- for physical and mental pain and we find no reason to interfere in the amount. It has come in this evidence of the appellant Mohd. Hussain that he was working on the rope shop of Hemant Robe on the salary of Rs. 2,000/- per month. The appellant has not examined Hemant nor filed his certificate. Under such circumstances, the Tribunal held that it was not proved that the appellant was paid Rs. 2,000/- per month by the owner of the rope shop and assessed his earning at Rs. 1,200/- per month and on the basis of 12% disability, calculated the loss of future earning at Rs. 100/- per month and applied multiplier of 15 and worked out compensation at Rs. 18,000/-. In our opinion, in view of Schedule II to Section 163A of the M.V. Act the earning of the appellant could not be taken less than Rs. 1,500/- per month and under such circumstances, the monthly loss of future income would come to Rs. 125/- and yearly Rs. 1,500/-. On multiplying it with the multiplicand, the amount would come to Rs. 22,500/-. The Tribunal also committed error in awarding Rs. 6,000/- for loss of income for six months when he took his treatment and remained on bed rest. In view of above, the loss of income of the appellant for six months would come to Rs. 9,000/-. Thus, we enhance the amount of compensation of Rs. 6,000/- to Rs. 9,000/- and Rs. 18,000/- to Rs. 22,500/-. Thus, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 56,500/-. 5. Mr. In view of above, the loss of income of the appellant for six months would come to Rs. 9,000/-. Thus, we enhance the amount of compensation of Rs. 6,000/- to Rs. 9,000/- and Rs. 18,000/- to Rs. 22,500/-. Thus, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 56,500/-. 5. Mr. Z.A. Khan, Learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that the offending vehicle was tempo and it was light motor vehicle and respondent No. 1, the driver, was holding light motor driving licence, therefore, the Tribunal wrongly held that respondent No. 1 was not having valid driving licence. Mr. Swami, Learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 Insurance Company, submitted that though respondent No. 1 was holding light motor vehicle licence but he was not authorised to drive transport vehicle and tempo was transport vehicle under Section 3 of the M.V. Act, therefore, the Tribunal rightly held that the driver was not holding valid licence. We quote Section 3 below: 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 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. From the plain reading of this section, it is clear that no person can drive a transport vehicle unless his driving licence specifically entitled him to do so. We find no endorsement of the Licensing Authority on the driving licence of respondent No. 1 authorising him to drive transport vehicle. A driver holding light motor vehicle licence can drive light motor vehicle, but not transport vehicle, though it might be a light motor vehicle, unless he is authorised by the Licensing Authority to drive the same. Therefore, the owner committed breach of the condition of the policy by allowing respondent No. 1 to drive the tempo which was a public service vehicle in view of Section 2(47). Therefore, the Tribunal rightly exonerated the Insurance Company to pay compensation. Madras High Court in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mahadevayya ; and Gujarat High Court in case of Manohar Jamatmal Sindhi and Anr. v. Ranguba and Ors. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly exonerated the Insurance Company to pay compensation. Madras High Court in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mahadevayya ; and Gujarat High Court in case of Manohar Jamatmal Sindhi and Anr. v. Ranguba and Ors. held that mere holding of licence to drive light motor vehicle will not entitle to drive a light public service motor vehicle unless specially authorised in accordance with Section 3 of the M.V. Act. The aforesaid judgments apply on all fours to the present case. It is, therefore, held that the respondent No. 1 was not holding valid driving licence on the date of accident and under such circumstances, the Tribunal rightly exonerated the Insurance Company to pay compensation as the owner committed breach of terms and conditions of the policy. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and it is directed that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 shall pay Rs. 56,500/- severally and jointly to the appellant with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of claim application till realisation (after adjusting the amount already deposited) within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. No order as to costs.