N. K. MODY, J. ( 1 ) THIS order shall also govern the disposal of M. A. No. 757 of 1998. Being aggrieved by the award dated 28. 4. 1998 passed by the M. A. C. T. , West nimar, Mandleshwar in Claim Case No. 36 of 1996, the present appeal and M. A. No. 757 of 1998 has been filed. ( 2 ) SHORT facts of the case are that the accident took place on 20. 10. 1995 by a scooter bearing registration No. MP 10-B 4900. The scooter was being driven by naveen, appellant No. 2, was owned by sanjay, appellant No. 1 and insured with insurance company, respondent No. 2. ( 3 ) DUE to the accident respondent No. 1, who was aged 12 years at the time of accident sustained fracture in his right leg of tibia bone and fracture of femur bone in left leg. Respondent No. 1 was hospitalised. Claim petition was filed by respondent No. 1, which was registered as Claim Case No. 36 of 1996, in which the insurance company, respondent No. 2, herein opposed the claim on the ground that at the relevant time appellant No. 2 was not possessing a valid driving licence. ( 4 ) ON the basis of pleadings of the parties the learned Tribunal framed the issues, recorded the evidence and passed award against appellants for a sum of Rs. 30,000 along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum and exonerated insurance company, respondent No. 2. ( 5 ) BEING aggrieved by this part of the award whereby respondent No. 2 has been exonerated, the owner and driver who are appellants in M. A. No. 955 of 1998 has preferred the appeal and in M. A. No. 757 of 1998 respondent No. 1, who was claimant is appellant praying for enhancement. Respondent No. 1 submits that break-up of amount awarded is as under: Permanent disability Rs . 25,000 Medical expenses Rs . 5,000 ( 6 ) IT is submitted that the respondent no. 1 was a boy of 12 years. On account of accident appellant was hospitalised with effect from 20. 10. 1995 to 3. 11. 1995. The permanent disability was assessed at the rate of 18 per cent by Dr. Y. K. Sharma. 25,000 Medical expenses Rs . 5,000 ( 6 ) IT is submitted that the respondent no. 1 was a boy of 12 years. On account of accident appellant was hospitalised with effect from 20. 10. 1995 to 3. 11. 1995. The permanent disability was assessed at the rate of 18 per cent by Dr. Y. K. Sharma. It is submitted that on account of loss of earnings of attenders for the period when the respondent No. 1 was under treatment no amount has been awarded. Similarly, no amount has been awarded towards pain and suffering. No amount has been awarded towards attender. It is submitted that amount awarded is on lower side. It is submitted by respondent No. 1 that insurance company, respondent No. 2, has wrongly been exonerated. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants mr. A. S. Garg submits that the insurance company has wrongly been exonerated. It is submitted that appellant No. 2 was possessing the driving licence dated 7. 11. 1993, which is Exh. P2 and which is on record. It is submitted that appellant No. 2 was possessing one kind of driving licence, therefore, it is not a case when appellant no. 2 is not having a licence. The learned counsel for appellant No. 2 placed reliance on paras 41 and 82 of decision in National insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, 2004 acj 1 (SC), which reads as under: " (41) If a person has been given a licence for a particular type of vehicle as specified therein, he cannot be said to have no licence for driving another type of vehicle which is of the same category but of different type. As for example, when a person is granted a licence for driving a light motor vehicle, he can drive either a car or a jeep and it is not necessary that he must have driving licence for both car and jeep separately. (82) Section 3 of the Act casts an obligation on a driver to hold an effective driving licence for the type of vehicle which he intends to drive. Section 10 of the Act enables Central Government to prescribe the forms of driving licences for various categories of vehicles mentioned in sub-section (2) of said section. (82) Section 3 of the Act casts an obligation on a driver to hold an effective driving licence for the type of vehicle which he intends to drive. Section 10 of the Act enables Central Government to prescribe the forms of driving licences for various categories of vehicles mentioned in sub-section (2) of said section. The various types of vehicles described for which a driver may obtain a licence for one or more of them are: (a) motor cycle without gear; (b) motor cycle with gear; (c) invalid carriage; (d) light motor vehicle; (e) transport vehicle; (f) road roller and (g) motor vehicle of other specified description. The definition clause in section 2 of the Act defines various categories of vehicles which are covered in broad types mentioned in sub-section (2) of section 10. They are 'goods carriage', 'heavy goods vehicle', 'heavy passenger motor vehicle', 'invalid carriage', 'light motor vehicle', 'maxicab', 'medium goods vehicle', 'medium passenger motor vehicle', 'motorcab', 'motor cycle', 'omnibus', 'private service vehicle', 'semi-trailer', 'tourist vehicle', 'tractor', 'trailer' and 'transport vehicle'. In claims for compensation for accidents, various kinds of breaches with regard to the conditions of driving licences arise for consideration before the Tribunal. A person possessing a driving licence for 'motorcycle without gear' (sic may be driving a vehicle), for which he has no licence. Cases may also arise where holder of driving licence for 'light motor vehicle' is found to be driving a 'maxicab', 'motorcab' or 'omnibus' for which he has no licence. In each case on evidence led before the Claims Tribunal, a decision has to be taken whether the fact of the driver possessing licence for one type of vehicle but found driving another type of vehicle, was the main or contributory cause of accident. If on facts, it is found that accident was caused solely because of some other unforeseen or intervening causes like mechanical failures and similar other causes having no nexus with driver not possessing requisite type of licence, the insurer will not be allowed to avoid its liability merely for technical breach of conditions concerning driving licence. ( 8 ) MR. S. V. Dandvate, counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that appellant no. 2 was not possessing valid driving licence for driving a motor cycle. ( 8 ) MR. S. V. Dandvate, counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that appellant no. 2 was not possessing valid driving licence for driving a motor cycle. It is submitted that from the perusal of deposition of Akhilesh, AW 2, it is evident that the appellant No. 2 dashed respondent No. 1. Learned counsel also placed reliance on the decision of Swaran Singh, 2004 ACJ 1 (SC), which reads as under (para 102): " (iii ). . . Mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties. To avoid its liability towards insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time. (v) The court cannot lay down any criteria as to how said burden would be discharged, inasmuch as the same would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. " ( 9 ) SO far as appeal for enhancement of award is concerned, it appears that amount awarded is on lower side as no amount has been awarded towards loss of earnings of attenders for the period when the injured was under treatment, pain and suffering, transport and conveyance charges. ( 10 ) SINCE the appellant No. 2 was possessing a hmv licence and the accident has taken place by lmv, therefore, it cannot be said that appellant No. 2 was not possessing the licence. In view of this the findings of learned Tribunal exonerating the insurance company is not sustainable in law. In view of this M. A. No. 955 of 1998 stands allowed. The findings of the learned tribunal, whereby the respondent No. 2 was exonerated from liability are set aside holding that respondent No. 2 is jointly responsible to pay the compensation to respondent No. 1 along with the appellants. So far as M. A. No. 757 of 1998 filed by the respondent No. 1 is concerned is also allowed in part. The amount awarded is enhanced by modifying the award from rs. 30,000 to Rs. So far as M. A. No. 757 of 1998 filed by the respondent No. 1 is concerned is also allowed in part. The amount awarded is enhanced by modifying the award from rs. 30,000 to Rs. 45,000 with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition. No order as to costs. C. C. as per rules. Appeal allowed. .