JUDGMENT 1. - Instant Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and Cross Objection haw been filed by the non-claimant-appellant and claimants-respondents respectively assailing the award dated 15.2.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sikar in M.A.C. Claim Case No. 485/2005. 2. Brief facts noticed are that Hari Ram was coming on Luna to his residence on 15.9.2004 at about 10.00 P.M. in the night and at that time a Auto Taxi, bearing No. RJ-23-P-2871, which was being driven in high speed, in a rash and negligent manner, came from the opposite direction and hit the Luna, consequent thereto, Hari Ram fell down and died on the spot. It is stated that he was aged about 35 years. The Tribunal, after analysing the material on record, allowed claim to the extent of Rs. 3,83,840/- which is assailed by the appellant-Insurance Company and cross objection has been filed on behalf of the claimants-respondents that the claim allowed is on the lower side and requires to be enhanced appropriately. 3. Counsel for the appellant at the outset contended that there was head or, collision and therefore, both were negligent whereas the Tribunal, on assumption and presumption, has held that only Bhagirath Mai, who was driving Auto Taxi was negligent. He contended that on perusal of the site plan also, the fact emerges that the deceased was also driving the vehicle on the main road and almost on the opposite direction. Therefore, once the site plan also proves that three was negligence of the deceased, the finding by the Tribunal is unjust ad perverse. He further contended that even the eye-witness Matadeen has said about this factum. He further contended that the driver Bhagirath Mal was driving Auto Taxi when he was not entitled to drive the same in as much as be had no valid driving license of Light Commercial Vehicle (L.C.V.) rather he had a licence of Light Motor Vehicle (L.M.V.) and since the Auto Taxi was a commercial vehicle, he was not entitled to drive the same and contended that there is vast difference in Light Motor Vehicle and Light Commercial Vehicle in as much as in case of Light Motor Vehicle, the license issued is for about 20 years but in a cast of Light Motor Vehicle, the same is required to be renewed every three years. H: further contended that the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kusum Rai & Ors., 2006(2) T.A.C. 1 (SC) as also in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited v. Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir & Anr., (2008) 8 SCC 253 , has come to the conclusion that if there is no slid license to drive the vehicle, which was being driven at the intended the, then such claim is not required to be considered. He further contended that the Tribunal has not considered these issues appropriately and submits that the issue involved in the instance case, deserves to be decided in favour of the appellant in tie light of the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, referred to supra. 4. Per contra, Counsel for the respondents contended that the Tribunal has analysed the material available on record in right perspective and on perusal of the site plan, it can very well be perused that the Auto Taxi driver came from the wrong side and it is not a head on collision but the driver of the Auto Taxi came from the wrong side and hit the vehicle of the deceased and such evidence has already been considered by the Tribunal and therefore, the same needs no interference. 5. In so far as the claim about the Light Commercial Vehicle as well as Light Motor Vehicle is concerned, he contended that the Auto Taxi has a weight of less than 7500 Kg. and no separate category exists of Light Motor Vehicle as well as Light Commercial Vehicle and the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kulwant Singh & Ors. v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., (Civil Appeal Nos. 9927-28 of 2014), has taken into consideration various judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court and has come to the conclusion that the licence of Light Motor Vehicle is sufficient and no separate licence/endorsement is required and contended that the judgment of Kulwant Singh (supra) is squarely applicable on the facts of the instant case and further contended that the claim deserves to be enhanced appropriately on the following points:- (a) The income adopted by the Tribunal at Rs. 73/- per day is very low when the deceased was earning substantial amount as he had number of cows and buffaloes. 73/- per day is very low when the deceased was earning substantial amount as he had number of cows and buffaloes. (b) Admittedly, there are five dependents and in the light of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors.Delhi Transportation Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the deduction on account of personal living expenses ought to be 1/4th rather than ⅓rd. (c) The amount allowed on consortium at Rs. 20,000/- is quite meager. (d) The amount allowed on account of loss of love and affection at Rs. 20,000/- to the children is also quite meager and low. (e) The amount allowed on account of funeral expenses is also quite low and needs to be enhanced appropriately. 6. In so far as the enhancement of the amount is concerned, Counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal has taken into consideration all the facts and circumstances and has taken into consideration the fact that the incident is of the year 2004 almost 11 years back and the amount of Rs. 3,83,840/- cannot be said to be low and no amount is required to be enhanced in the present case. 7. I have considered the arguments of the Counsel and have perused the impugned Order and judgments. In my view, the finding of the Tribunal is just and proper and the arguments of Counsel for the appellant, in the light of the judgment in the case of Kulwant Singh (supra) does not sustain. 8. It would be appropriate to quote relevant Paras of the judgment in the case of Kulwant Singh (supra) which reads as under:- "9. We find the judgments relied upon cover the issue in favour of the appellants. In Annappa Irappa Nesaria (supra), this Court referred to the provisions of Section 2(21) and (23) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which are definitions of Tight motor vehicle and 'medium goods vehicle' respectively and the rules prescribing the forms for the licence, i.e. Rule 20. From what has been noticed hereinbefore, it is evidence that "transport vehicle" has not been substituted for "medium goods vehicle" and "heavy goods vehicle". The light motor vehicle continued, at the relevant point of time to cover both "light passenger carriage vehicle" and "light goods carriage vehicle". From what has been noticed hereinbefore, it is evidence that "transport vehicle" has not been substituted for "medium goods vehicle" and "heavy goods vehicle". The light motor vehicle continued, at the relevant point of time to cover both "light passenger carriage vehicle" and "light goods carriage vehicle". A driver who had a valid licence to drive a light motor vehicle, therefore, was authorised to drive a light goods vehicle as well." 10. In S. Iyyapan (supra), the question was whether the driver who had a licence to drive Tight motor vehicle' could drive Tight motor vehicle' used as a commercial vehicle, without obtaining endorsement to drive a commercial vehicle. It was held that in such a case, the Insurance Company could not disown its liability. It was observed : "18. In the instant case, admittedly the driver was holding a valid driving licence to drive light motor vehicle. There is no dispute that the motor vehicle in question, by which accident took place, was Mahindra Maxi Cab. Merely because the driver did not get any endorsement in the driving licence to drive Mahindra Maxi Cab, which is a light motor vehicle, the High Court has committed grave error of law in holding that the insurer is not liable to pay compensation because the driver was not holding the licence to drive the commercial vehicle. The impugned judgment [Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1016 of 2002, Order dated 31.10.2008 (Mad)] is, therefore, liable to be set aside." No contrary view has been brought to our notice. Accordingly, we are of the view that there was no breach of any condition of insurance policy, in the present case, entitling the Insurance Company to recovery rights. Accordingly, we allow these appeals, set aside the impugned order of the High Court and restore that of the Tribunal. There will be no order as to costs." 9. I have also considered the arguments advanced by Counsel for the parties on enhancement and in my view, on the facts noted herein above, the claim also deserves to be enhanced for the reasons henceforth:- (a) Though no basis has been given of earning of Rs. 10,000/- per month, the equally important fact is that a person having a large family with number of cows and buffaloes would certainly be earning at least Rs. 10,000/- per month, the equally important fact is that a person having a large family with number of cows and buffaloes would certainly be earning at least Rs. 100/- per day and in my view, it would be appropriate to adopt income to the tune of Rs. 3,000/- per month and the claim would be recomputed accordingly. (b) Admittedly, the dependents are said to be five in number namely; wife, two minor children and parents and therefore, in the light of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), the deduction for personal living expenses would be 1/4th as against ⅓rd. (c) The amount allowed on consortium at Rs. 20,000/-, taking into consideration the fact that the incident is of the year 2004, appears to be low and is enhanced to Rs. 35,000/- (d) The amount allowed for the loss of love and affection for two children at Rs. 10,000/- per children appears to be low and is enhanced to Rs. 20,000/- per children. (e) The amount allowed for the loss of the love and affection for the old aged parents at Rs. 20,000/- each is also low and is enhanced to Rs. 25,000/- each and the amount allowed for funeral expenses to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- is enhanced to Rs. 10,000/- 10. In view of the above, the compensation is recomputed as under:- (A) Income Rs. 3,000/- P.M. (B) Deduction of 1/4th on self-expenses Rs. 750/- P.M. Balance (A-B) Rs. 2,250/- P.M. (C) Multiplier 2,250/- x 12 x 17 = Rs. 4,59,000/- (D) Loss of consortium Rs. 35,000/- (E) Loss of love and affection for two children @ Rs. 20,000/- per child Rs. 40,000/- (F) Loss of love and affection for father and mother @ Rs. 25,000/- each Rs. 50,000/- (G) Funeral expenses Rs. 10,000/- Total Rs. 5,94,000/- Less : Compensation awarded by Tribunal Rs. 3,83,840/- Amount enhanced Rs. 2,10,160/- or say Rs. 2,11,000/- 11. Accordingly, the total amount of Rs. 2,11,000/-, as aforesaid, is additionally computed/allowable/enhanced in the present appeal. 12. Thus, while the appeal filed by the appellant-National Insurance Company lid. is dismissed but the Cross Objection filed by the claimants is partly allowed he impugned Order/Award dated 15.2.2006 is modified to the extent that the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. Accordingly, the total amount of Rs. 2,11,000/-, as aforesaid, is additionally computed/allowable/enhanced in the present appeal. 12. Thus, while the appeal filed by the appellant-National Insurance Company lid. is dismissed but the Cross Objection filed by the claimants is partly allowed he impugned Order/Award dated 15.2.2006 is modified to the extent that the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 2,11,000/- with interest @ 7% to be allowed from the date of filing of claim petition will be paid by the non-petitioners. Out of the above enhanced amount with interest so computed rounded off to the nearest thousands, the Tribunal shall deposit Rs. 1,25,000/- plus interest in the name of Smt. Santosh Devi, wife of the deceased in the Monthly income Scheme (M.I.S.) in the nearest post office for a period of five years. The interest accruing on month to month basis will be deposited in the saving account with the same post office with permission to withdraw the monthly interest/quarterly interest as per the scheme of the post office. Rs. 40,000/- with interest be paid to Smt. Durga Devi, mother of the deceased by Bank Draft and Rs. 40,000/- with interest be paid to the Ram Karan, father of the deceased by Bank &raft. The remaining balance amount with interest would be disbursed to Smt. Santosh Devi, wife of the deceased by the Tribunal by bank draft/bankers cheque, [lie above exercise to be done within two months. No costs. *******