JUDGMENT : This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 23.12.2010 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC cum Member, MACT-IV, Hospet, in MVC No.821 of 2008. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. The brief facts of the case as averred in the petition are that on 11.12.2007, the petitioner-Kumari Shanta, daughter of Parvata Gouda, went to her relatives house at Garaga and after visiting them, when she was going back in an autorickshaw bearing Registration No.KA-35/8527 to Mariyammanahalli, at about 6.00 p.m. near Gollarahalli cross, 1st respondent drove the auto rashly and negligently, due to which the auto capsized and as a result of the same, the petitioner including the inmates sustained the injuries. Immediately she was shifted to PHC, Mariyammanahalli and thereafter she was referred to 100 Bed Hospital wherein she was admitted for a day and again she was shifted to VIMS Hospital, Bellary and was admitted for a day and from there she was referred to Danamma Hospital, Bellary. As she could not be cured, she was referred to NIMHANS, Bangalore, where she took treatment for 3 days and thereafter was referred to Dr. S.P. Belegar, Neurologist, Hubli, wherein she was admitted as an inpatient for a period of 25 days and underwent operation of her spinal cord and a rod was inserted. It is further contended that she was unmarried and was working as a teacher in Abhirudhi Seva Samasthe, Hospet, and used to earn Rs.2,000/- per month. For having suffered injuries and incurred expenses, a claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ for short) before the Tribunal. In pursuance of the notice, though respondent Nos. 1 and 2 entered appearance through counsel, they did not file any written statement. Respondent No.3-insurer entered appearance through its counsel and filed its written statement. By denying the contents of the petition, it is further contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle in question and as such there is breach of conditions of the policy and it is not liable to pay any compensation. On these grounds, it prayed for dismissal of the petition. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. On these grounds, it prayed for dismissal of the petition. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether petitioner proves that, on 11.1.2007 at about 6.00 p.m. on Mariyammanahalli-Garaga road, near Gollarahalli cross, has sustained injuries in an accident due to rash and negligent driving of Autorikshaw bearing No.KA-35/8527 by its driver 1st respondent? 2. Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, what amount? From whom? 3. What Order or Award? The petitioner in order to prove her case got examined herself as PW-2 and also examined Dr. Gaddi F. Someshwara as PW-3 and got marked the documents Exs.P-1 to P-121. On behalf of the respondents, the Relationship Executive of respondent No.3, was examined as RW.1 and the ARTO was got examined as R.W.2 and got marked 2 documents as Exs.R-1 and R-2. After hearing the parties to the lis, the impugned judgment and award came to be passed by the Tribunal. Being dissatisfied with the award passed by the Tribunal, the claimant is before this Court. 4. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the appellant are that, though the Doctor-PW.3, who examined the appellant-claimant, has come to the conclusion that the claimant has suffered 60-65% disability, the Tribunal by taking 20% disability has awarded the compensation, which is on the lower side. He further contended that the Tribunal ought to have taken the income at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month, as the appellant, besides working as a private teacher, was also conducting tuitions and was doing tailoring work. But the Tribunal erred in taking the income at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per month. He further contended that fixing the liability on respondent No.2-owner of the auto by holding that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle in question is not correct. He further contended that the auto will come within the purview of “light motor vehicle” and in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in AIR 2017 SC 3668 , the driver of the auto was competent to drive the vehicle in question. He further contended that the auto will come within the purview of “light motor vehicle” and in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in AIR 2017 SC 3668 , the driver of the auto was competent to drive the vehicle in question. Merely because the driver of the auto was not having an endorsement to drive a transport vehicle, the Tribunal has fixed the liability on respondent No.2/owner of the autorickshaw, which is not sustainable in law in view of the decision quoted supra. On these grounds, he prayed for allowing the appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment and award by enhancing the compensation. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the insurer vehemently argued and contended that though the driver of the offending vehicle was holding driving licence to drive LMV(non-transport), he was not authorized to drive the autorikshaw which is a passenger vehicle. He further contended that there is breach of conditions of the policy and the insurer has examined the Regional Transport Officer as RW-2, who has specifically deposed in his evidence that the driver had no valid driving licence to drive the autorikshaw, passenger vehicle, and, as such, the Tribunal has rightly fixed the liability on respondent No.2-owner of the vehicle. He further contended that the compensation awarded under various heads is justifiable. On these grounds, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 6. The accident is not in dispute so also the offending vehicle insured with respondent No.2-insurer. 7. As could be seen from the impugned judgment and award, the appellant-claimant has sustained fracture to her spinal cord. Immediately, after the accident, she was shifted to the Government Hospital, Mariyammanahalli and thereafter she was shifted to VIMS hospital, Bellary and to S.P. Belegar hospital, Hubli, wherein she took treatment from 20.01.2007 to 15.02.2007. The wound certificate which has been produced at Ex.P-8 shows that the appellant sustained lacerated wound over the back of the head, contused abrasion over the right of the neck, tenderness over the front of the chest and head injury and injury to the back. Even the X-ray revealed that the petitioner has sustained head injury with Traumatic compression fracture of T3-T4 vertebra with Paraplegia. Even the X-ray revealed that the petitioner has sustained head injury with Traumatic compression fracture of T3-T4 vertebra with Paraplegia. The Doctor Someshwara F. Gaddi has deposed in his evidence that the petitioner has sustained traumatic compression fracture of T3-T4 vertebra with paraplegia with Bilateral Haemothorax and the patient is suffering from head ache, depression, unable to run, needs support to walk, unable to get up from sitting position, decreased sensation below pelvic region and both lower limbs, urinary incontinence, both lower limb brisk DTR with spastic paraparesis with both upgoing plantars and these symptoms are affecting her routine activities and she has sustained disability to an extent of 60-65%. Though the doctor has deposed that the appellant has sustained disability to an extent of 60-65%, the Tribunal took 1/3rd of the disability i.e. 20% and has assessed the compensation. It is the contention of the appellant that she was working as a teacher and was earning Rs.2,000/- per month and was also earning Rs.2,000/- by conducting tuitions and by tailoring work,. In the absence of the documents produced by the appellant, the Tribunal by taking the notional income at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per month, has awarded an amount of Rs.l,08,000/- towards loss of future income. Though in the normal circumstance, the compensation awarded appears to be justifiable, while taking the notional income, the Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the year of the accident and the wages prevailing during the said period. Admittedly, the accident has taken place during 2007 and at that time, the notional income of Rs.4,000/- was the yard stick which used to be adopted even in settlement of cases before the Lok Adalat. 8. As could be seen from the records and the evidence of the Doctor-PW-3, the appellant has sustained many injuries including fracture of spinal cord and head injury with traumatic compression fracture of T3-T4 with paraplegia. PW-3 has deposed that the claimant cannot run and needs support to walk, unable to get up from sitting position and decreased sensation below pelvic region. Under the above said facts and circumstances, the evidence of PW-3 appears to be true as there is no contra evidence to discard his evidence. PW-3 has deposed that the claimant cannot run and needs support to walk, unable to get up from sitting position and decreased sensation below pelvic region. Under the above said facts and circumstances, the evidence of PW-3 appears to be true as there is no contra evidence to discard his evidence. Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances, if the disability is taken at 50% and the income at Rs.4,000/-per month which was prevailing during 2007, the appellant-claimant is entitled to an amount of Rs.4,32,000/-(4000x12x18x50/100) towards loss of future income. The documents which have been produced before the Tribunal, also indicates that the appellant sustained head injury with traumatic compression fracture of T3-T4 with paraplegia and other injures and was admitted in various hospitals and at S.P. Belegar Hospital, Hubli from 20.01.2007 to 15.02.2007 and she has. In that light, I feel that the compensation which has been awarded under other heads also requires to be enhanced. In that light, if an amount of Rs.60,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities and discomfort, Rs.10,000/- towards attendant charges, conveyance, special diet, Rs.25,000/- towards loss of income during the laid up period and Rs.1,00,000/- towards marriage prospects, is awarded, then, it would meet the ends of justice. So far as the compensation awarded under the head medical expenses is concerned, the same is kept intact. Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances, the appellant claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.7,64,800/- Since the Tribunal has awarded amount of Rs.2,75,800/-, after deducting the same, the appellant-claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.4,89,000/- with interest at 6% per annum. 9. The next contention taken up by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive light motor vehicle(non-transport) valid from 22.12.2006 to 26.12.2026. As such, the liability which has been fixed on respondent No.2 owner of the vehicle is not justifiable. 10. As could be seen from the records, it clearly indicate the fact that the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive LMV (non-transport) vehicle and the same was in force from 22.12.2006 to 26.12.2026. 10. As could be seen from the records, it clearly indicate the fact that the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive LMV (non-transport) vehicle and the same was in force from 22.12.2006 to 26.12.2026. Then the question which remains for consideration by this Court is: Whether the driver of the autorikshaw was competent to drive the transport vehicle when he was holding a driving licence of LMV(non-transport)? 11. The above said question in dispute has been answered by the Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in AIR 2017 SC 3668 . In the said case, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that if a person is holding a licnece to drive LMV registered for a private use who is driving a similar vehicle which is registered with the insured for the purpose of carrying the passengers for hire or reward, he would not require an endorsement to drive a transport vehicle as the same is not contemplated under the provisions of the Act. 12. In view of the aforesaid proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court, the driver of the auto was authorized to drive a transport vehicle. Keeping in view the aforesaid proposition of law, now let me consider whether the autorikshaw, passenger carrying vehicle, comes within the purview of the light motor vehicle. In this behalf, I quote Section 10 of the Act which reads as under: “10. Form and contents of licences to drive.-(1) Every learner’s licence and driving licence, except a driving licence issued under Section 18, shall be in such form and shall contain such information as may be prescribed by the Central Government. (2) A learner’s licence or, as the case may be, driving licence shall also be expressed as entitling the holder to drive a motor vehicle of one or more of the following classes, namely:- (a) motor cycle without gear; (b) motor cycle with gear; (c) invalid carriage; (d) light motor vehicle; (e) transport vehicle; (i) road-roller; (j) motor vehicle of a specified description. As could be seen from Section 10 of the Act, though under the classes of vehicle autorickshaw is not specifically mentioned under the definition of light motor vehicle, taking into consideration the unladen weight of the autorikshaw, it could be held that the vehicle in question comes within the purview of LMV. Then under such circumstances, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Mukund Dewangan’s case(supra), the auto comes within the purview of light motor vehicle, respondent No.1 was entitled to drive the autorickshaw. Though respondent No.3-insurer has got examined RW-2-ARTO, who in his evidence has deposed that the driver of the autorikshaw was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the autorikshaw passenger vehicle, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Mukund Dewangan’s case(supra), the evidence of RW-2 is not going to help the insurer in any manner in view of the fact that the driver-respondent No.1 was holding a driving licence to drive LMV(non-transport) which is valid for the period from 22.12.2006 to 26.12.2026. Then, under such circumstances, there is no breach of conditions of the policy as contended by the counsel for the insurer. In that light, fastening of liability by the Tribunal on respondent No.2 is not sustainable in law and the same is liable to be set aside. Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances, liability is fixed on 3rd respondent and he is directed to deposit the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and the additional compensation awarded by this Court with up to date interest within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 23.12.2010 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC cum Member, MACT-IV, Hospet, in MVC No.821 of 2008 is modified as indicated above. The liability fastened on respondent No.2 is set aside and is shifted on the 3rd respondent-insurer. The 3rd respondent-insurer is directed to deposit the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and additional compensation as awarded by this Court with up to date interest within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Registry is directed to draw the award accordingly and shall send back the records to the jurisdiction Tribunal forthwith.