JUDGMENT : Appellant is the claimant, being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation and also fastening the liability on the owner of the offending vehicle to compensate the claimant in the judgment and award dated 14-02-2011 made in MVC No.7826/2099 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for short) has filed this appeal. 2. The appellant filed a claim petition contending that on 21-07-2009 at about 9.00 p.m., while he was walking on the extreme left side of the road from East to West direction, at that time, a tempo bearing Registration No.KA03/A6134 came behind at a high speed in the negligent manner and dashed against the claimant, due to that he fell down and sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to Ambedkar Medical College Hospital. In the accident, he has sustained compound fracture of dislocation of left ankle, fracture of cuboids, open injury to the left foot. He has spent huge money for his treatment. Prior to the accident he was working as a tailor and earning Rs.6,000/- p.m., In view of the permanent disability he has suffered he cannot do the work of a tailor. First respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle and second respondent is the RC owner of the said tempo. Hence, both the respondents are liable to pay the compensation of Rs.11,00,000/-. 3. In response to the notice issued by the Tribunal, the second respondent owner of the offending vehicle remained exparte. The first respondent-insurance company filed written statement denying the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tempo. Further, the driver of the tempo was possessing LMV driving license and he had no effective driving license to drive the TATA 407 LMV. Hence, the insurance company is not liable to compensate the claimant and sought for dismissal of the claim petition as against them. 4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues. 5. The claimant, in order to prove his case got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P9. On behalf of the insurance company, one of the officials of the insurance company was examined as R.W.1 and got marked the documents as Ex.R1 to Ex.R3. 6. 5. The claimant, in order to prove his case got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P9. On behalf of the insurance company, one of the officials of the insurance company was examined as R.W.1 and got marked the documents as Ex.R1 to Ex.R3. 6. The Tribunal, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence let in by the parties and taking into consideration sketch, spot mahazar, IMV report, charge sheet and complaint held that the accident occurred due to the actionable negligence on the part of driver of the tempo and the claimant has sustained injuries. Hence, he is entitled for compensation. With regard to quantum of compensation is concerned, in view of the injuries he has sustained, he had taken treatment from 21-07-2009 to 11-11-2009. Split skin grafting was also made on 31-08-2009. However the claimant has not examined the doctor who treated him to assess the disability. In view of that, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.77,400/-, with interest at 6% p.a. With regard to liability is concerned, the insurance company examined one of its officers as R.W.1 and got marked the ‘B’ Register Extract and D.L. Extract of the driver of the offending vehicle as Ex.R2 and Ex.R3 and contended that the driver of the tempo was having driving license to drive LMV, whereas the vehicle involved in the accident is Tempo 407 transport vehicle. Hence, the driver of the offending tempo did not possess the valid driving license as on the date of accident and liability was fastened on the owner of the vehicle to compensate the claimant. The claimant being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation and also fastening the liability on the owner of the vehicle to compensate the claimant has filed this appeal. 7. Sri. Shripad V Shastri, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal fastening liability on the owner of the vehicle is contrary to law. The driver of the offending vehicle obtained driving license on 29-01-1981 to drive LMV (NT), and he has obtained LMV (A/R NT) and also obtained a badge No.5208/1980. The driving license obtained is prior to the amendment of the Motor Vehicle Act, hence he is entitled to drive light goods vehicle. He relied upon the judgment reported in (2008) 3 SCC 464 (National Insurance Company Limited Vs. The driving license obtained is prior to the amendment of the Motor Vehicle Act, hence he is entitled to drive light goods vehicle. He relied upon the judgment reported in (2008) 3 SCC 464 (National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Annappa Irappa Nesaria Alias Nesaragi & Ors.). Further in the accident he has sustained dislocation of left ankle, fracture of cuboids, open injury to the left foot. He was inpatient for a period of nearly 3 months, thereafter follow up treatment has been taken. Even though the claimant has not examined the doctor, the Tribunal ought to have awarded reasonable compensation. The compensation awarded is too meager and sought for enhancement of compensation. 8. On the other hand, Sri. O. Mahesh, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 argued in support of the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and contended that as on the date of accident, driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving license. Section 2(10) defines driving license. Section 2(21) defines Light Motor Vehicle. Section 3 speaks about the necessity for driving license and the person must hold effective driving license. In the instant case, the vehicle involved is a TATA 407 tempo, which is a light goods vehicle. The D.L. Extract produced as Ex.R3 clearly disclose that the driver of the offending vehicle was having LMV (NT), LMV (A/R) and he has also obtained a badge for A/R cab. He is not eligible to drive light goods vehicle. The Tribunal taking into consideration all these aspects of the matter has fastened the liability on the owner of the vehicle. The quantum of compensation awarded is also in accordance with law and sought for dismissal of the appeal. 9. I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the judgment and award, oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties and other relevant records. 10. The occurrence of the accident, injuries sustained by the claimant in the road traffic accident occurred on 21-07-2009 is not in dispute. He had taken treatment at Ambedkar Medical College Hospital. In the accident, he has sustained compound fracture of dislocation of left ankle joint, fracture of cuboids, open injury to the left foot. He was a tailor by profession, he was out of employment for a period of 3 months. He had taken treatment at Ambedkar Medical College Hospital. In the accident, he has sustained compound fracture of dislocation of left ankle joint, fracture of cuboids, open injury to the left foot. He was a tailor by profession, he was out of employment for a period of 3 months. The wound debridement with external fixation was done on 22-07-2009 and 24-07-2008. The split skin grafting was also done on 31-08-2009. However, the claimant could not examine the doctor from the Ambedkar Medical College Hospital. The wound certificate and case sheet produced clearly disclose that he has sustained fracture and dislocation injuries. Merely, the claimant had failed to examine the doctor, the Tribunal cannot deny the fair and reasonable compensation to the claimant. A sum of Rs.77,400/- awarded as compensation is lower side. Except awarding Rs.35,000/- towards pain and suffering, the compensation awarded in all other heads is also on the lower side. Hence, it is appropriate to award another sum of Rs.50,000/- in addition to Rs.77,400/- awarded by the Tribunal, with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. 11. With regard to liability is concerned, the issue is no more resintegra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment in Annappa Irappa Nesaria (supra) held that the amendments carried out in the Motor Vehicle Rules, 1988 having a prospective operation, the license held by the driver of the vehicle in question cannot be said to be invalid in law. Further 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 license to drive a light motor vehicle, therefore, was authorized to drive a light goods vehicle as well. In the instant case, admittedly, the driver of the offending vehicle had obtained driving license to drive the LMV (NT) on 29-01-1981. He has also obtained a badge bearing No.5208/1980. The amendment to the Motor Vehicle Act came into force in the year 1994. Subsequently, the Rules was amended in the year 2001. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to above, the driver is entitled to drive the light goods vehicle as well. The Tribunal has not examined this aspect of the matter in proper prospective. The driver of the offending vehicle was having driving license prior to the amendment act coming into force. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to above, the driver is entitled to drive the light goods vehicle as well. The Tribunal has not examined this aspect of the matter in proper prospective. The driver of the offending vehicle was having driving license prior to the amendment act coming into force. Hence he is entitled to drive light goods vehicle. Hence, the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER The appeal is allowed in allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 14-02-2011 made in MVC No.7826/2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore is modified. The claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.50,000/- in addition to Rs.77,400/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 6% p.a. Since the driver of the offending vehicle was having driving license prior to the amendment of the Act, the liability was fastened on the insurance company to compensate the claimant.