JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal is directed against the impugned award rendered by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal ) upon MACP No. 19-1/II/2013/2012 whereby a sum of Rs. 2,24,845/- alongwith interest @ 8% per annum stood assessed as compensation amount vis-à-vis the claimant. 2. Under the impugned award, the learned Tribunal fastened the apposite indemnificatory liability upon the insurer of the offending vehicle. The insurer is aggrieved by the pronouncement recorded by the learned MACT, hence it has instituted the instant appeal before this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant does not contest the legality of the findings returned by the learned Tribunal upon the issue appertaining to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No.1. However, he contends that findings occurring in the impugned award qua fastening of liability upon the insurer qua its liquidating the compensation amount vis-à-vis the claimant, suffer, from an infirmity given at the time contemporaneous to the taking place of the ill-fated occurrence, the driver of the offending vehicle, not, holding a valid and effective licence to drive it. 4. He contends that the driving licence borne in Ext.RW-2/B does not hold depictions therein of respondent No.1 being authorized to drive a transport vehicle, whereas the apposite RC borne in Ext. RW-2/A makes a disclosure of the offending vehicle being registered as a “Light Goods Vehicle” hence with its evidently falling in the category of “Light Goods Vehicle” enjoined therein occurrence of the aforesaid depiction whereas non occurrence whereof in Ext. RW-2/B rendered him unauthorized to drive it also thereupon with breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance cover hence surfacing, also rendered vitiated, any, fastening of the apposite indemnificatory liability vis-à-vis the Insurance Company. RW-2/B rendered him unauthorized to drive it also thereupon with breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance cover hence surfacing, also rendered vitiated, any, fastening of the apposite indemnificatory liability vis-à-vis the Insurance Company. Moreover, in view of a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court pronounced in Civil Appeal No. 5826 of 2011 decided on 3rd July, 2017 titled as Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, wherein in paragraph 46(iv) thereof occurring at page 60, it held as extracted hereunder: “(iv) The effect of amendment of Form 4 by insertion of “transport vehicle” is related only to the categories which were substituted in the year 1994 and the procedure to obtain driving licence for transport vehicle of class of “light motor vehicle” continues to be the same as it was and has not been changed and there is no requirement to obtain separate endorsement to drive transport vehicle, if a driver is holding licence to drive light motor vehicle he can drive transport vehicle of such class without any endorsement to that effect.” besides propounded that in respect of testing the validities of driving licences issued in respect of “light motor vehicles”, licences in respect whereof stand issued subsequent to the year 1994 besides for testing the concomitant trite factum in respect of holder’s thereof, possessing, a valid and effective driving licnece to drive the vehicle concerned, an, allusion is to be made to the earmarked category of the offending vehicle borne in the registration certificate concerned. It has also been propounded therein that subsequent to 1994 driving licences issued in respect of “Light Motor Vehicles” concerned though holding only an endorsement therein for their holder being authorized to drive “light motor vehicle” as is the reflected category of the offending vehicle in the apposite RC hereat thereupon dehors no reflections occurring in the driving licences concerned qua its holders being authorized to drive a transport vehicle yet not rendering the apposite licences to be stripped of its/their validity. Consequently, the aforesaid submission is rejected. 5. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company contends with vigour that the learned Tribunal has miscomputed compensation vis-à-vis the claimant comprised in a sum of Rs.54,000/- towards loss of future earnings, especially with neither firm oral or documentary evidence of the medical expert standing adduced. Consequently, the aforesaid submission is rejected. 5. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company contends with vigour that the learned Tribunal has miscomputed compensation vis-à-vis the claimant comprised in a sum of Rs.54,000/- towards loss of future earnings, especially with neither firm oral or documentary evidence of the medical expert standing adduced. The aforesaid submission is accepted by this Court, given a traversing of the evidence, not, unraveling qua the claimant leading into the witness box, the doctor concerned who examined the injuries besides who on analysing the injuries proclaimed qua their severity, whereupon the claimant stood disabled to perennially perform his duties. Consequently, any assessment of Rs. 54,000/- towards loss of income, by, the learned Tribunal vis-à-vis the claimant is quashed and set-aside. The learned Tribunal has under head “transportation charges” quantified a sum Rs.10,000/- vis-à-vis the claimant. However, in respect thereof the claimant has not adduced any tangible documentary evidence, hence compensation qua transportation charges, as computed by the learned Tribunal, is also quashed and set-aside. Furthermore, the learned Tribunal has under the head “pain and suffering” and loss of amenities of life and towards future discomfort, respectively assessed compensation in sums of Rs.50,000/- each, dehors its anchoring the aforesaid quantifications upon any firm evidence existing on record. Nowat when this Court is constrained for reasons aforesaid constrained to decline vis-à-vis the claimant, any, computation of compensation amount vis-à-vis loss of future earnings, thereupon the quantifications of compensation amounts aforesaid under the aforesaid heads is also quashed and set-aside. The impugned award is modified to the above extent. The appeal is disposed of accordingly, so also the pending applications, if any.