ORDER 1. These four appeals arise out of the Claim Case No. 9/95 and 10/95 decided by the XI Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur (for short 'Tribunal') vide award dated 6.8.1998. As all these appeals involve common questions, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order. 2. On 10.12.1994, at about 4 p.m., the claimant Sukrati Bai was selling bangles and other cosmetic articles and Sudama Bai was selling the vegetables in the 'Weekly Bazar' at Gwarighat Road, Rampur Jabalpur. At that time a Tempo bearing Registration No. MUJ 2859 driven rashly and negligently by Niranjan Prasad dashed the claimants Sukrati Bai and Sudama Bai. As a result of the said accident, both of them suffered grievous injuries. It is not in dispute that the offending Tempo was owned by Gauri Shanker Dubey and insured with Oriental Insurance Company, Napier Town, Jabalpur. 3. The claimant Sudama Bai filed a claim petition No. 9/95 seeking compensation of Rs. 4,20,000/- for the injuries sustained by her. Smt. Sukrati Bai filed claim petition No. 10/95 seeking compensation of Rs. 4,80,000/-. The claim petitions were resisted by the owner and the Insurer of the said Tempo. It was stated by the Insurer that Niranjan Prasad who was driving the said Tempo was not possessing valid driving licence. 4. The Tribunal framed eight issues in each claim case and after recording evidence partly allowed the claim petitions and awarded compensation of Rs. 27,000/- to Sudama Bai and Rs. 32,000/- to Sukrati Bai, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. Feeling aggrieved, the MA No. 1670 and MA No. 1691/1998 have been filed by the insurer contending that they have been wrongly saddled with the liability to pay the compensation. MA No. 1339/1998 and MA No. 1340/1998 has been filed by Smt. Sukrati Bai and Smt. Sudama Bai respectively for enhancement of compensation. 5. The insurer contends that the driver was possessing the licence to drive a light motor vehicle and he was driving Tempo which falls in the category of passenger vehicle or public service vehicle being a transport vehicle and in the absence of any endorsement allowing him to drive a transport vehicle, it cannot be said that he was possessing a valid driving licence, in the circumstances, the Insurer cannot be held liable to pay compensation. 6. 6. Shri Pradeep Naolekar, learned counsel for the owner of the Tempo placed reliance on a judgment of this Court passed in the case of Vijay Kumar Bansal and another v. Vinod Kumar Rai and another [ 2006 ACJ 1424 ] to contend that if the driver is possessing a licence to drive a light motor vehicle the licence would be a valid driving licence for driving a transport vehicle not exceeding the unladen weight prescribed under definition of light motor vehicle. 7. Having regard to the fact that the driver of the Tempo was possessing a light motor vehicle licence and it is not the case of the Insurer that the unladen weight of the Tempo was exceeding 7500 kgs, in my considered view, the controversy involved in this matter has already been set at rest by various judgments including the judgment in the case of Ashok Gangadhar Maratha v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. [2000 ACJ 319], United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Vimla Bai [2001 (1) MPWN 152 = 2002 ACJ 854 ], New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Suraj Parkash [2001 ACJ 85 (HP)] and Vijay Kumar Bansal and another v. Vinod Kumar Rai and another (supra). Thus, the Tribunal has rightly held that the driver of the Tempo was possessing a valid driving licence and has rightly held the appellant/Insurer liable to pay compensation. 8. In MA No. 1339/1998, the claimant Sukratibai aged 60 years is seeking enhancement of the compensation. In order to prove her case Sukrati Bai (AW 1) examined herself. She stated that she was doing business of bangles and cosmetics and used to lam Rs. 300/p to 400/- per month. In the said accident she sustained fracture of Fibula in the right leg and also a fracture in the left hip bone. She was admitted in Medical College Hospital at Jabalpur for two months. She further stated that after the accident she is not able to do the business. Dr. B.B. Upadhyay (AW 2) assessed her disability to the extent of 50%. Having regard to the nature of the injuries sustained by her in her leg and hip bone, her age and income from business in my considered view, the appellant/claimant Sukrati Bai is entitled for compensation of Rs. 15,000/- for loss of future earning, Rs. 20,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. Having regard to the nature of the injuries sustained by her in her leg and hip bone, her age and income from business in my considered view, the appellant/claimant Sukrati Bai is entitled for compensation of Rs. 15,000/- for loss of future earning, Rs. 20,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 8,000/- for medical expenses, expenditure of attendant and for special diet during the period of her treatment. Thus, the total compensation payable to the appellant would be Rs. 43,000/-. The enhancement amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum. 9. MA No. 1340/1998 is for enhancement of compensation filed by claimant Sudama Bai. At the time of accident she was aged 45 years. It is stated by her that she was doing the business of selling vegetables, and was earning Rs. 40/- to 50/- per day. She sustained injury on her head and fracture in her right shoulder. She stated that after the accident she was taken to Medical College Hospital, Jabalpur where she was admitted for 1 month and 14 days. She stated that after the accident she is not able to do the business due to the injuries sustained by her. Dr. B.B. Upadhyay (AW 2) has deposed that the right hand of Sudama Bai has frozen and its movements are restricted from shoulders. He stated that her shoulder bone was fractured, he assessed her disability to the extent of 30%. Havingregard to the nature of injuries suffered by the appellant, her age and income from the business in my view Sudama Bai is entitled for compensation of Rs. 25,000/- for loss of future earning, Rs. 8,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 5,000/- for medical expenses, expenses of attendant and for special diet. The total compensation payable would be Rs. 38,000/-. The enhancement compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum. 10. Thus, the MA No. 1670/1998 and MA No. 1691/1998 are dismissed and MA No. 1339/1998 and MA No. 1340/1998 are partly allowed to the extent indicated above. No orders as to costs.