Judgment :- This MFA Crob is in MFA 30503/09 filed U/o 41 Rule 22 C.P.C. against the judgment and award dt.02.12.08 passed in MVC No.176/07 on the file of the I Addl. Civil Judge (SR.DN) & MACT at Gulbarga, partly allowing the claim petition and seeking further enhancement of compensation.) 1. This appeal and cross objection arise out of the same judgment of the Tribunal. 2. MFA No.30503/2009 is filed by the Insurance Company questioning the liability put on it by the Tribunal by allowing claim application of the respondent. Whereas the Cross Objection No.1034/2009 is filed by the claimant for seeking enhancement of compensation on the ground that wrong multiplier is applied and 1/3rd wad deducted from the monthly income, which is impermissible in a case of injuries and thirdly loss of earning capacity percentage passed by the Tribunal is taken at a lower percentage. 3. The facts in brief are that, the clamant was traveling in a Auto Cab bearing No.KA-33/2879, when the vehicle came near Chammnalli cross on account of the rash and negligent driving by the auto driver the vehicle hit the motorcycle which was coming from opposite side. On account of the said accident the claimant sustained injuries to his right fibula, right knee joints and other parts of the body. Claim application filed by the claimant was allowed by the Tribunal by awarding a sum of Rs.1,35,800/-and the liability put on the Insurance Company. 4. In so far as the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company is concerned, learned counsel Smt. Sumitra H. for appellant argued that the Tribunal committed an error in putting liability on the Insurance Company when the vehicle in question – auto cab’s driver did not possess valid driving licence and this fact is clear from Ext.R-1 and the said document reveals that the driver had licence to drive the light motor vehicle (nontransport). Therefore, no liability could have been put on the Insurance Company and a person who does not possess driving licence to drive a transport vehicle. In support of the above submission, counsel for the Insurance Company placed reliance on the decisions reported in 2010 ACCR, Page No.1. Therefore, no liability could have been put on the Insurance Company and a person who does not possess driving licence to drive a transport vehicle. In support of the above submission, counsel for the Insurance Company placed reliance on the decisions reported in 2010 ACCR, Page No.1. The decision of this Court in MFA No.492/2009 and the decision in MFA No.30309/2010 contended that following amendments affected from 28.03.2001 which is prospective in operation, in the instant case the Tribunal was not justified in putting liability on the Insurance Company. Referring to the decision in MFA No.492/2009, it is argued that this Court has taken view that when licence was granted to driver of the light motor vehicle (NT), the vehicle driven by the driver is concerned, being found to be commercial vehicle. No valid licence was hold by the driver is concerned and there is breach of condition on Insurance Company. On the strength of aforesaid decisions, it is argued that no liability could have been put on the Insurance Company by the Tribunal. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel Sri. Babu H. Metagudda for the claimant argued that the licence that was issued to the driver of auto cab was in respect of the light motor vehicle (NT), yet in view of the definition of light motor vehicle appearing in Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, even a transport vehicle can be called as light motor vehicle. Unladen weight of the vehicle is below 7500 kg. therefore in the instant case as the auto cab was weighting only 7250 kg. the vehicle becomes a light motor vehicle and as such. The Tribunal not committed error in putting liability on the insurance Company. The above submission is sought to be supported by the decisions reported in 2008 Kant. M.A.C 311(SC), AIR 1999(SC) 3181 (2009) ACJ 1283. Therefore, the Insurance Company cannot escape from the liability. 6. As far as the cross objection filed by the claimant is concerned, submission made by the learned counsel for the claimant is that the MACT took out 1/3rd from income of the injured, which is impermissible as it is not a case of death. Secondly, the percentage of loss of earning capacity was taken at 25%. Third ground is that the multiplier was wrongly applied and the applicable multiplier is ‘14’ and not’13’. Therefore compensation to be enhanced. 7. Secondly, the percentage of loss of earning capacity was taken at 25%. Third ground is that the multiplier was wrongly applied and the applicable multiplier is ‘14’ and not’13’. Therefore compensation to be enhanced. 7. As regards the question of liability, the admitted facts are that, the driver possessed the licence to drive light motor vehicle (NT) and this is clear from Ex.R-1. The question is therefore whether the auto cab was driven by the claimant falls under the light motor vehicle or a transport vehicle. This takes to the definition of ‘light motor vehicle’ and Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act and the said definition reads as follows; .“light motor vehicle means a transport vehicle or ominibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road-roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed 7500 kilograms” 8. It is therefore clear that the aforesaid definition of the light motor vehicle. It also includes a transport vehicle provided the unladen weight that not exceed at 7500kg. In the instant case it is nobody’s case that the auto cabs unladen weight is more than 7500kg. On the other hand, the documents produced along with the memo by learned counsel for the claimant reveals that the unladen weight of the auto cab was 504kg and unladen weight 125kg. Thus it is clear that the vehicle in question comes within the definition of ‘light motor vehicles’. The aforesaid conclusion is also supported by the decisions of the Apex Court. 9. In the case of Ashok Gangadhar Maratha V/s Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in AIR 1999 Supreme Court (3181), it has been held that, where the vehicle weight less than 6000kg though the vehicle was goods carriage vehicle it is held to be a transport vehicle and consequently the light motor vehicle and licence held by the driver being for L.M.V. therefore, was found to be valid the insurer was made lisble to pay compensation. 10. In the case of National Insurance Company Ltd., V/s Annappa Irappa Nesaria and Others reported in 2008 Kant M.A.C. 311 (SC) it has been held by the Apex Court that where transport vehicle does not have the unladen weight exceeding 7500kg it is a light motor vehicle. 11. 10. In the case of National Insurance Company Ltd., V/s Annappa Irappa Nesaria and Others reported in 2008 Kant M.A.C. 311 (SC) it has been held by the Apex Court that where transport vehicle does not have the unladen weight exceeding 7500kg it is a light motor vehicle. 11. In the case of New India Assurance company Ltd., V/s Chikkappaiah and Others reported in 2009 ACJ 1283 , it has been held by learned Single Judge of this Court that the definition of ‘light motor vehicle’ would indicate that it takes within its umbrage both a transport vehicle and a non-transport vehicle and therefore, after Taking note of Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act this Court took a view that the Insurance Company was liable. 12. The decisions referred by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company are not applicable to the case on hand because Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act was not considered and secondly unladen weight of the vehicle involved in these cases also was not referred. Whereas in the instant case it is not dispute unladen weight of the auto cab was less than 7500 kg and as such the vehicle becomes a light motor vehicle. Liability on the Insurance Company therefrom cannot be avoided, as the licence held by the auto drive is a valid driving licence to drive the auto cab in question. 13. As regards the cross objections, while awarding the compensation, the MACT committed an error by taking 1/3rd towards the personal expenses which is not permissible that the multiplier was applied. Therefore on the head of ‘loss of future earnings” the amount requires to be modified in the place of the amount given by the Tribunal. The claimant is actually entitled to Rs.75,600/-. As far as the percentage of loss of earning capacity is concerned, the doctor has put up disability at 50% for the limb. The Tribunal has put it at 15% which is not an error committed by the Tribunal. Therefore no need to increase the percentage of ‘loss of earning capacity’ though the compensation is increased by Rs.28,000/-. Accordingly the compensation amount stands modified. 14. For the aforesaid reasons, appeal filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed and cross objection stands allowed. Compensation gets increased by a sum of Rs.28,800/-. The enhanced amount shall be deposited by the Insurance Company within one month. Accordingly the compensation amount stands modified. 14. For the aforesaid reasons, appeal filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed and cross objection stands allowed. Compensation gets increased by a sum of Rs.28,800/-. The enhanced amount shall be deposited by the Insurance Company within one month. Claimant is permitted to withdraw the amount.