Judgment 1. This appeal is by the insurance company challenging the judgment and award of the Tribunal on the ground of liability as well as quantum. 2. Heard, the appeal is admitted and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition before the Tribunal. 4. The brief facts of the case as pleaded in the claim petition are: On 30.09.2003, when the deceased B.C.Lingaraju @ Kiran was traveling as a pillion rider on a motorbike bearing registration No.KA-12-E-9097, from Banavara to Somwarpet near Doddaboor of Aburkatte, a mini lorry bearing registration No.KA-12-A-5445 came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against their motorbike. As a result, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and was shifted to Govt. Hospital, Somwarpet where he succumbed to injuries. Hence, his parents and younger sister filed a claim petition before MACT, Madikeri seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. The Tribunal awarded them a compensation of Rs.4,82,000/-with interest at 6% p.a. and directed respondent Nos.1 to 3, who are the driver, owner and the insurer of the offending lorry to pay compensation to the claimants jointly and severally and directed the insurer to deposit the same. 5. The learned counsel for the insurer of offending lorry pointing out from the driving license at Ex.D-5 submits that the driver had obtained driving license on 20.06.1998 to drive three wheeler passenger vehicle (A/R cab) valid for a period of 3 years i.e., from 20.06.1998 to 19.06.2001 and he did not possess an effective driving license to drive the offending mini lorry which is classified as transport vehicle as on the date of accident occurred on 30.09.2003 and the Tribunal has committed an error in fastening the liability against the insurer by directing them to pay the compensation amount to the claimants. Alternatively, he submits quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side and he prays for allowing the appeal. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the following judgments. a) ILR 1996 KAR 2220 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Lakshmamma & others b) ILR 2000 KAR 1608 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Shivanna and others c) ILR 2010 KAR 4733 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Rep. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the following judgments. a) ILR 1996 KAR 2220 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Lakshmamma & others b) ILR 2000 KAR 1608 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Shivanna and others c) ILR 2010 KAR 4733 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Rep. by its Administrative Officer vs. Yalgurdappa, since deceased by his LRs, and another d) 2008 ACJ 2860 (SC) National Insurance Co. Ltd. VidhyadharMahariwala and others 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the owner of the offending lorry submits that the definition of Light motor vehicle includes the transport vehicle and the driver of the offending vehicle having obtained the license to drive Light motor vehicle which includes transport vehicle valid from 14.1.1999 to 31.05.2020 had an effective and valid driving license to drive the vehicle in question as on the date of accident and the Tribunal is justified in fastening the liability on the insurer of the offending lorry by directing them to pay the compensation amount to the claimants. 7. The learned counsel for the claimants supporting the arguments of the learned counsel for the owner with regard to liability submits quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and there is no scope for reduction and she prays for dismissal of the appeal. 8. From the rival contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the points that arise for consideration in the appeal are: a) whether the Tribunal is justified in fastening the liability on the insurer of the offending vehicle and b) whether quantum of compensation awarded is just and reasonable or does it call for reduction?” 9. There is no dispute regarding death of the deceased D C Lingaraju @ Kiran in the road traffic accident occurred on 30.9.2003 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending mini lorry classified as light goods vehicle by its driver. 10. The driver of the offending vehicle viz., Sri B R Vishwanath has possessed the following types of licences: NATURE OF LICENCE DATE OF ISSUANCE VALID UPTO (1) LMV-Tr) 20.06.1998 19.06.2001 (Nature of vehicle permitted to be driven – 3 wheeler passenger Vehicle (A/r autorickshaw cab) (2) LMV (NTr) 14.01.1999 01.05.2020 (3) LMV-(Tr) 10.10.2003 09.10.2006 (4) HTV 20.07.2009 19.07.2012 and there is no dispute between the parties about the aforesaid licences possessed by the driver of the offending vehicle. 11. 11. There has been no change in the definition of Light Motor Vehicle right from the date of enactment of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 till date, even though the Act has undergone several amendments from time to time and therefore, it is sufficient if the definition of Light Motor Vehicle as defined under Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is extracted. “Light motor vehicle” means a transport vehicle or omnibus 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. The only change which has taken place from time to time is in the unladen weight of a motor vehicle. 12. The word ‘transport vehicle, is also defined under Section 2(47) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which reads as under: “transport vehicle” means a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle” There is no much difference between a transport vehicle defined under the definition of Light Motor Vehicle and a goods carriage defined under the definition of transport Vehicle except in the unladen weight of the vehicle, that means to say if the unladen weight of a transport vehicle is less than 7500 kgs, then it is a light motor transport within the meaning of “light motor vehicle” vehicle and if the said weight exceeds 7500 kgs, it becomes a goods carriage within the meaning of transport vehicle.13. That after amendment to Rule 14 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 which has come into force w.e.f. 28.3.2001, if any person desires to obtain a fresh licence to drive a transport vehicle is required to obtain specific licence of particular type of transport vehicle to drive the said type of transport vehicle. For instance, after amendment of Rule 14 of Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1980 which has come into force w.e.f. 28.3.2001 if a person obtains a licence to drive a particular type of transport vehicle viz., a goods auto, he is not entitled to drive a goods tempo. For instance, after amendment of Rule 14 of Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1980 which has come into force w.e.f. 28.3.2001 if a person obtains a licence to drive a particular type of transport vehicle viz., a goods auto, he is not entitled to drive a goods tempo. The drivers who had obtained driving licences to drive Light motor vehicle prior to the date of amendment of Rule 14 of Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules are entitled to drive Light motor vehicle of both transport and non-transport including light goods carriage vehicle provided the unladen weight of the said vehicle is less than 7500 kgs without obtaining transport endorsement specified for the first time by virtue of amendment to Section 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act w.e.f. 14.11.1984. Corresponding amendment has not been brought to Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules immediately and Rule 14 has been amended for the firs time in the year 2001 and it was come into force w.e.f. 28.3.2001.14. In the instant case, the driver has obtained the licence to drive Light motor vehicle (NT) on 14.1.1999 and it has been valid upto 31.5.2020. So, he is entitled to drive Light motor vehicle of both transport and non-transport vehicle including light goods carriage vehicle till the expiry of the said licence i.e., upto 31.5.2020 without obtaining an endorsement as contemplated under Section 10 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 14 of Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 as has been held by this Court in the following cases: a) ILR 1996 KAR 2220 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Lakshmamma & others b) ILR 2000 KAR 1608 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Shivanna and others c) ILR 2010 KAR 4733 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Rep. By its Administrative Officer vs. Yalgurdappa, since deceased by his LRs. and another 15. There is not merit in the argument of the learned counsel for the insurer that the driver in the instant case had obtained the licence to drive light motor vehicle-transport on 20.6.1988 valid upto 19.6.2001 and he did not have an effective valid light motor vehicle –transport driving licence as on the date of accident i.e., on 30.9.2003. 16. There is not merit in the argument of the learned counsel for the insurer that the driver in the instant case had obtained the licence to drive light motor vehicle-transport on 20.6.1988 valid upto 19.6.2001 and he did not have an effective valid light motor vehicle –transport driving licence as on the date of accident i.e., on 30.9.2003. 16. In the instance case, the driver of offending lorry by virtue of obtaining light motor vehicle (Tr) driving licence on 10.10.2003 valid upto 9.10.2006, he light motor vehicle (NT) driving licence obtained by him on 14.9.1999 valid upto 31.5.2020 will not go. It will be in addition to the driving licences which have already been possessed by him. 17. The driver who had obtained light motor vehicle (NT) driving licence prior to the amendment of Section 10 of Motor Vehicles Act and amendment of Rule 14 of Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules for longer period say in the instant case the driver had obtained the light motor vehicle driving licence on 14.1.1999 valid upto 31.5.2020 are entitled to drive light motor vehicle of both transport and non-transport provided that the unladen weight of such transport vehicle is less than 7500 kgs. So obtaining of light motor vehicle (Tr) driving licence by the driver in the instant case on 10.10.2003 valid upto 9.10.2006, will not deprive him of driving a transport vehicle, if the unladen weight of the said vehicle is less than 7500 kgs. It is because, if Section 10 of Motor Vehicles Act and Rule 14 of Karnataka Motors Vehicles Rules had not been amended, the drivers who had obtained Light motor vehicle (NON-TR) prior to the amendment of Section 10 of Motor Vehicles Act and Rule 14 of Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, would have been entitled to drive transport vehicles till the expiry of their driving licences. While amending the Motor Vehicles Act and Karnataka Motors Vehicles Rules, the licences issued earlier to the amendment are not taken away or declared as void. Therefore, the Judgment in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD vs. VIDHYADHAR MAHARIWALA AND OTHERS reported in 2008 ACJ 2860 and other judgments cited by the learned counsel for insurer are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.18. Therefore, the Judgment in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD vs. VIDHYADHAR MAHARIWALA AND OTHERS reported in 2008 ACJ 2860 and other judgments cited by the learned counsel for insurer are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.18. In the case of Vidhyadhara Mahariwala, the accident was occurred on 11.6.2004, the driver in the said case had the driving licence valid for the period from 15.12.1997 to 14.12.2000, he got it renewed from 28.12.2000 to 28.12.2003 and it was again renewed from 16.5.2005 to 15.5.2008 and he did not have any type of licence as on the date of accident i.e., 11.6.2004 including Light motor vehicle driving licence. Whereas in the case on hand, the light motor vehicle (NON-Tr) driving licence obtained by the driver on 14.1.1999 has been valid upto 31.5.2020. 19. From the above discussion, it is to be held that the driver having obtained a licence to drive light motor vehicle (Non-Tr) driving licence on 14.9.1999 valid upto 31.05.2020 is entitled to drive light motor vehicle of both transport and non-transport provided the unladen weight of the said transport vehicle is less than 7500 kgs. 20. In the instant case, undisputedly the unladen weight of the offending mini lorry is less than 7500 kgs. On the other hand, the driver in addition to possessing of Light motor vehicle (NON-Tr) driving licence, he has possessed the licences to drive the Light Motor vehicle (Tr), Heavy transport vehicle and motor cycle with gear. That being so, it cannot be said that the driver in the instant case had no effective and valid licence to drive the offending mini lorry classified as light goods vehicle since the unladen weight of which is less than 7500 kgs as on the date of the accident. From this point also, the argument of the learned counsel that the driver with licence to drive LMV (NT) could not have driven the offending mini lorry and therefore, the insurer is not liable to indemnify the owner and pay compensation to the claimant, cannot be accepted. Thus, there is no error in the findings of the tribunal in fastening the liability on the insurer of the offending vehicle. Now, I have to see whether quantum of compensation awarded is just and reasonable or does it call for interference. 21. Thus, there is no error in the findings of the tribunal in fastening the liability on the insurer of the offending vehicle. Now, I have to see whether quantum of compensation awarded is just and reasonable or does it call for interference. 21. The deceased was aged about 22 years at the time of accident as evident from the post mortem report – Ex.P.3. The claimants in support of their contention that the deceased had studied upto PUC and thereafter he was doing agriculture and business, have examined the 2nd claimant –mother of the deceased as PW1 and have produced the SSLC marks card of the deceased at Ex.P.7., but they have not produced any documents establishing the income of the deceased. Considering his age as 22 years at the time of his death, year of accident as 2003 and his future prospects, his income assessed by the tribunal at ERs.3,000/- p.m. is on the lower side and it can be safely fixed at Rs.4000/- per month. As the deceased was a bachelor, 50% of his income has to be deducted towards personal expenses and remaining 50% ha to be taken as his contribution of family. As against the multiplier of 18 applied by the Tribunal on the basis of the age of the deceased, multiplier of 15 has to be applied on the basis of the age of his younger parent i.e., his mother, who was 40 years old at the time of his death. So, the loss of dependency works out to Rs.3,60,000 (rs.4000x1/2x12x15) and it is awarded as against Rs.4,32,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 22. As Rs.20,000/- awarded by the tribunal under the heading loss of love and affection and Rs.20,000/- under the heading loss of estate are on the higher side, they are reduced to Rs.10,000/- each. Rs.10,000/- awarded by the tribunal for transportation of dead-body and funeral expenses is just and proper and there is no scope for interference. 23. Thus, the claimants are entitled to the following compensation: (1) Loss of dependency Rs.3,60,000/- (2) Loss of love and affection Rs. 10,000/- (3) Loss of estate Rs. 10,000/- (4) Transportation of dead body And funeral expenses Rs. 10,000/- -------------------- Rs.3,90,000/- -------------------- 24. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent stated hereinabove. 10,000/- (3) Loss of estate Rs. 10,000/- (4) Transportation of dead body And funeral expenses Rs. 10,000/- -------------------- Rs.3,90,000/- -------------------- 24. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent stated hereinabove. The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.3,90,000/- as against Rs.4,82,000/-awarded by the tribunal. The insurance company is directed to deposit the same together with interest @ 6% P.A. from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization, after deducting amount, if any, already deposited.25. From the compensation amount of Rs.3,90,000/-, Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- are to be invested in fixed deposit in the names of the claimants 1 and 2, who are the mother and father of the deceased respectively, in any nationalized bank, for a period 9 years in case of mother, and 6 years in case of father, renewable once in 3 years and with a right of option for them to withdraw interest periodically. The remaining amount with interest accrued thereon shall be released in favour of claimants 1 and 2 in equal proportion.