1. This Civil 1st Miscellaneous appeal is directed against the award/judgment dated 3rd of October, 1998 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu, whereby it allowed the claim petition of respondent No.1 Smt. Ratno Devi and awarded an amount of Rs. 1,03,760/- as compensation with 12% interest per annum, for short `impugned award hereinafter. 2. It is necessary to notice brief facts of the case herein as under: - Ratno Devi-respondent-1 claimant filed a claim petition No. 108/Claims on 5th of August, 1995 with a prayer that a compensation be awarded in her favour on the ground that she is a victim of a vehicular accident which was caused by Shri Ajit Singh-driver-respondent No.2 herein while driving Matador No. JK02-8088, rashly and negligently. The claimant-respondent No. 1 sustained injuries. She has staled in the claim petition that she is rendered permanently disabled due to the said injuries and had claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,65,000/- as per breaks up given in the claim petition. 3. Appellant-insurer resisted the petition and following issues came to be framed: - "1. Whether accident involving injuries to the petitioner has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending matador No. JK02-8066 by respondent no. 1 on 6.8.1994? OPP 2. In case issue no. 1 is proved in affirmative, what is the amount of compensation payable to the petitioner and by whom? OPP 3. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident?OPR-3 4. Relief." 4. Parties were directed to lead evidence. Claimant-respondent No. 1 examined Gulzari Lal, Raj Kumar, Dr. Anil Gupta and also the statement of claimant came to be recorded. Insurer has not examined any witness despite sufficient opportunities and the evidence of the claimant remained un-rebutted. The Tribunal after hearing learned counsel for the parties, allowed the claim petition and awarded Rs. 1,03,760/- as compensation in favour of the claimant-respondent No. 1 vide impugned award. Feeling aggrieved, Insurer-appellant preferred this appeal on 14th of January, 1999. 5. Insurer has not examined any witness despite sufficient opportunities and the evidence of the claimant remained un-rebutted. The Tribunal after hearing learned counsel for the parties, allowed the claim petition and awarded Rs. 1,03,760/- as compensation in favour of the claimant-respondent No. 1 vide impugned award. Feeling aggrieved, Insurer-appellant preferred this appeal on 14th of January, 1999. 5. During the pendency of the appeal, this Court vide order dated 10th August, 2005, allowed the Insurer-appellant to lead evidence in support of its case/defence and directed the Tribunal to provide an opportunity to the appellant in order to prove whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence and also commanded the Tribunal to record finding on issue No. 3. Claim-respondent No. 1 and the appellant-Insurer caused appearance before the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide order dated 31st of October, 2005, after hearing the parties, recorded a finding after recording the evidence of the Insurer-appellant and held that Insurer has failed to prove that the driver was not having valid licence and has also failed to prove that the owner-insured-Sh. Mohinder Singh had committed any willful default. 6. Findings recorded by the Tribunal were received by the Registry of this Court on 22.03.2006 and thereafter the appellant remained absent. Accordingly, appeal came to be restored vide order dated 27th of September, 2007 passed in Rest. (C) No. 13/2006. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties present. The witnesses examined by respondent No. 1-claimant have stated categorically that Driver-Ajit Singh-respondent No. 2 had driven the offending vehicle Matador rashly and negligently on 6th of August, 1994 at Old Adda Bishnah and caused injuries to respondent No. 1 and she was rendered disabled. Dr. Anil Gupta has deposed as under: - ".... She is an old case fracture both bones right leg Lower 1/3rd. At present she has shortening of right leg by about 1.5 cm and stiff ankle right. Her permanent disability is about 10 percent. The medical certificate placed on the court file has been shown to me today in the court which on comparing with the original record of the Hospital brought today in the court by the concerned clerk, is found to be correct. The medical certificate is marked as EXPWAG. The petitioner present in the court today is the same to whom I had examined and issued the certificate. The medical certificate is marked as EXPWAG. The petitioner present in the court today is the same to whom I had examined and issued the certificate. With such injury the petitioner can climb the stairs but with difficulty. The injury results in limping and pain. The petitioner can do only sitting job but cannot swiftly walk and run. The petitioner remained admitted in hospital vide MRD No. 39085 w.e.f. 6.8.94 to 7.8.94 and thereafter remained under treatment vide OPD No. 1881 till 2.2.95. Finally the petitioner was examined by me on 25.2.1996 and the certificate EXPWAG was issued." 8. The expert evidence remained un-rebutted. Thus the Court has no option but to hold that the claimant has sustained 10% permanent disablement and the claimant had remained confined to bed for at least six months. In the given circumstances of the case, the claimant has undergone pain, mental torture, harassment and is deprived of her amenities of life and has to undergo pain and suffering throughout life because of disablement. 9. As discussed hereinabove, the evidence of the claimant has remained un-rebutted. Thus, I am of the considered view that findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 1 need no interference. 10. Before I will deal with Issue No. 2, it is proper to decide Issue No. 3 at the first instance. The onus of proof was on the appellant-insurer. It had failed to lead evidence before the Tribunal. However, this Court vide order dated 10th of August, 2005 (Supra), allowed the Insurer-appellant to lead evidence and examine witness(es) and the Tribunal recorded finding (supra) and held that the Insurer has failed to discharge the onus. 11. I have gone through the evidence recorded and findings returned. I am of the considered view that the Insurer-appellant has failed to prove issue No. 3. 12. It is admitted case of the Insurer-appellant that the driver was having the genuine/effective/valid driving licence but was competent to drive heavy goods vehicle only. There is not an iota of evidence on the file suggesting the fact that driver-respondent No. 2, Ajit Singh was not competent to drive passenger vehicle-Matador. This is not the case of the insurer-appellant that the driver was competent to drive one type, of vehicle but he was driving another type of vehicle on the relevant date and that was the cause of accident. This is not the case of the insurer-appellant that the driver was competent to drive one type, of vehicle but he was driving another type of vehicle on the relevant date and that was the cause of accident. Neither there is such a pleading nor proof. When the Insurer fails to plead and prove the said fact, it is to be saddled with the liability. Division Bench of this Court in case National Insurance Co. ltd. v. Irfan Sidiq Bhat reported as 2004 (II) SLJ 623, laid the same proposition of law. It is profitable to reproduce para 18 of this Judgment hereunder: - "18. As a matter of fact, so far as the case of Irfan Sidiq Bhat in C1MA no. 104/2001 is concerned, the question as to validity of the driving licence of Showkat Ahmad is completely beside the point inasmuch the vehicle in question suffered loss in a mine blast. It cannot, therefore, be said that the driver contributed to the accident, in the case of National Insurance Co. v. Swaran Singh (supra), the Supreme Court has observed that where the driver possessing licence for one type of vehicle is found to be driving another type of vehicle, a question would arise as to whether this was the main or contributory cause of accident. It was held that: "...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..." 13. Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 180/2002 titled as National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Mohammad Sadiq Kuchey decided on 27th of September, 2007 laid the same law. Apex Court also in a case titled as National Insurance Company v. Swaran Singh, AIR 2004 SC 1531 also laid down the same law. 14. The appellant-Insurer has also failed to prove that the Owner had committed any willful breach and it was within the knowledge of the owner-Insured that driver was having only licence to drive goods motor vehicle and not the Matador. 15. 14. The appellant-Insurer has also failed to prove that the Owner had committed any willful breach and it was within the knowledge of the owner-Insured that driver was having only licence to drive goods motor vehicle and not the Matador. 15. Provisions contained in Motor Vehicles Act, no where mandate that the driving licence should be for a particular kind of vehicle but this is contained in Rule 4(1) (a) of State Motor Vehicle Rules. This Court held in case titled National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Irfan Sidiq Bhat (supra), that Rule/Rules would not over ride the main provisions of law and accordingly held that the requirement of PSV endorsement is not required. It is profitable to reproduce paras 14 to 16 hereunder- "14. Where the licence authorizes the person to drive a `public service vehicle within the meaning of section 2(35) of the Act, there is no question of further authorization under rule 4 (l)(a) of the State Rules. The State Rules have to be understood as complimentary to the Act and not in derogation of it and `public service vehicle in rule 4 (1)(a) of the State Rules cannot be understood and given a different meaning from section 2 (35) of the Central Act. 15. Undisputedly, both the drivers held driving licence which entitled them to drive light motor vehicles with in the meaning of section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Light motor vehicle includes a transport vehicle; transport vehicle includes a public service vehicle and public service vehicle includes any motor vehicle used or adapted to be used for carriage of passengers for hire or reward. The question of authorization within the meaning of rule 4(1)(a) of the State Rules would arise only in cases where the driving licence does not relate to public service vehicle within the meaning of section 2 (35) of the Act. Where the licence authorizes the person to drive a light motor vehicle and the vehicle conforms to the description/definition of `light motor vehicle and `public service vehicle, in section 2(21) and (35) of the Act, it would not be necessary to obtain another authorization under rule 4 (1) (a) of the State Rules. Where the licence authorizes the person to drive a light motor vehicle and the vehicle conforms to the description/definition of `light motor vehicle and `public service vehicle, in section 2(21) and (35) of the Act, it would not be necessary to obtain another authorization under rule 4 (1) (a) of the State Rules. Peerzada Noor-ud-Din, as a matter of fact, in his statement categorically stated that light motor vehicles include, among other vehicles, Tata Sumo; that the licence with respect to light motor vehicles did not require any PSV endorsement; and that by virtue of the driving licence held by them, the driver could drive a taxi-to be precise, a Tata Sumo. The fact that Tata Sumo by virtue of its weight being less than 7500 Kgs qualifies to be a `light motor vehicle, is not in dispute. 16. It may not be out of place to state here that in National Insurance Co. v. Swaran Singh, AIR 2004 SC 1531 a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court has pointed out the distinction between "effective licence - the term used in section 3 of the Act, and `duly licensed used in Section 149(2), and held that absence of an effective licence under section 3 may make the person liable to prosecution, but in order to avoid their liability (in case of third party claim) the Insurance Company must not only establish the available defence(s) but also prove a conscious `breach on the part of the owner of the vehicle." 16. Keeping in view the above discussion, Insurer appellant failed to discharge onus and the findings recorded by the Tribunal are perfectly correct. ISSUE NO. 2: 17. The Tribunal after examining the file, came to the conclusion that claimant-respondent No. 1 is entitled to Rs. 1,03,760/- as per the breaks up given in the judgment. I am of the considered view that the Tribunal has rightly held that the claimant has sustained 10% permanent disablement and awarded Rs. 20,000/- under the Head pain and sufferings and Rs. 10,800/- under the head loss of income while holding that the claimant was confined to bed for six months and was deprived of the said income for the said period. The Tribunal has also rightly awarded Rs. 15,000, Rs. 5000/-, Rs. 5000/-, 5000/- and Rs. 20,000/- under the Head pain and sufferings and Rs. 10,800/- under the head loss of income while holding that the claimant was confined to bed for six months and was deprived of the said income for the said period. The Tribunal has also rightly awarded Rs. 15,000, Rs. 5000/-, Rs. 5000/-, 5000/- and Rs. 15000/- under the heads Medical expenses, Transportation expenses, Attendants Charges, Special Diet charges and loss of Amenities of life respectively. The Tribunal has also rightly awarded Rs. 12, 960/- under the head loss of future income and Rs. 15000/- under the head damage for disfigurement. But the Tribunal has fallen in an error while awarding 12% per annum interest. The interest was to be awarded @ 9% per annum instead of 12% per annum. 18. Having glance of the above discussion, the impugned award is modified to the extent of rate of interest. Accordingly, compensation of Rs. 1,03,760/- including interim award with 9% interest from the date of institution of this claim petition till its final realization, is passed in favour of respondent No. 1-claimant and appeal is disposed of. Send down the records along with copy of this judgment.