JUDGMENT : P.G.M. Patil, J. The Insurer-Shriram General Insurance Company Limited being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 05.10.2016 passed in MVC No.9/2014 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-XII, Ballari has filed this appeal. 2. It is the case of the claimants before the Tribunal that on 15.04.2013, the deceased persons and the injured persons were proceeding in Tempo Trax Toofan bearing Registration No.Ka-37/5841 as paid passengers from Kuragod towards Ballari on Ballari-Shiraguppa road and at about 3.15 p.m., when the said vehicle reached near Somasamudra village on the said road, the vehicle on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the said vehicle, lost control over the vehicle and the vehicle turtled and fell down into the ditch by the side of the road. Due to the said accident, the claimants sustained grievous injuries and deceased persons by name Smt. Lakshmi, Minor Sirisha, Smt. Ambamma, M.Sadashivaiah @ Sadashivappa. M, Smt. Renukamma, Kari Basavana Gouda, Minor Abhishek, Paniprasad M.P. and M.Y.Nagaraj succumbed to the injuries, whereas the other inmates sustained injuries. The claimants-major son and daughter of the deceased Smt.Ambamma filed the said claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- against the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. The claimants contended that the deceased was aged about 54 years and she was doing coolie work and also an agriculturist earning Rs.10,000/- p.m. and contributing the same towards the maintenance of her family. 3. The said claim petition was heard along with the other claim petitions and the Tribunal has passed a Common Judgment. 4. In pursuance to the notice, respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared before the Tribunal and filed separate written statements contending that the petitions filed by the claimants are not maintainable and further contended that the compensation claimed by the claimants is highly excessive and exorbitant in nature. Respondent No.2-insurer has also taken a specific contention that, the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid and effective driving licence to ride the said vehicle as on the date of the accident and therefore he is not liable to pay the compensation. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed issues and clubbed all the cases and recorded common evidence. 6. The claimant No.1 was examined as PW-5 in respect of claim petition and got marked in all 46 documents. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed issues and clubbed all the cases and recorded common evidence. 6. The claimant No.1 was examined as PW-5 in respect of claim petition and got marked in all 46 documents. Respondent No.2-insurer got examined 2 witnesses and got marked 5 documents. 7. The learned member of the Tribunal after hearing both the parties passed the impugned judgment awarding compensation of Rs.4,44,844/- with interest at 7% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. 8. The insurer being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award has filed this appeal on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid and effective licence and therefore there is breach of policy conditions and on these grounds the liability saddled against the appellant-insurer is liable to be set aside. 9. Further it is contended that the claimants are major son and daughter of the deceased and as such 3/4th of the income of the deceased has to be deducted towards her personal and living expenses and only 1/4th of the income ought to have been considered as contribution towards family. 10. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and respondents/claimants. 11. A short question which arise for consideration in this appeal is, whether the appellant-insurer has made out grounds to set aside the liability saddled against him and whether he has made out grounds for reducing the amount of compensation. 12. The first contention taken by the appellant-insurer is now not available in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2017) AIR SC 3668. It is admitted that the driver of the offending vehicle had driving licence to drive the Light Motor Vehicle and the vehicle involved in the accident is also LMV namely Tempo Trax Toofan. However, the driver had valid driving licence to drive the LMV non transport and the offending vehicle involved in the accident is a transport vehicle. Therefore, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated supra, the insurer cannot avoid the liability and there is no necessity of obtaining endorsement for driving the transport vehicle where the driver had valid licence for driving LMV non transport vehicle and therefore this contention of the appellant-insurer is liable to be rejected. 13. Therefore, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated supra, the insurer cannot avoid the liability and there is no necessity of obtaining endorsement for driving the transport vehicle where the driver had valid licence for driving LMV non transport vehicle and therefore this contention of the appellant-insurer is liable to be rejected. 13. It is admitted that the claimants in the case are the major son and daughter of the deceased mother. It is stated that the deceased was working as a coolie and also an agriculturist earning Rs.10,000/- per month. In the absence of any positive evidence to prove the income of the deceased, the Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month and has deducted 1/3rd of the income towards her personal and living expenses in assessing the loss of dependency. 14. The learned counsel for the insurer-appellant relying on the judgment in the case of A.Manavalagan Vs. A.Krishnamurthy and Ors, (2004) ILR(Kar) 3268 submitted that since the claimants are major son and daughter, only 1/4th of the income has to be taken as contribution towards the family and 3/4th has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. 15. Therefore, in the present case, the claimants being major son and daughter, only 1/4th of the income of the deceased has to be taken as a contribution towards the family and 3/4th income has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of deceased. The Tribunal has considered income at Rs.4,000/- p.m. Considering the age, occupation and income of the deceased and also year of the accident and further the guidelines provided for settlement of cases before the Lok Adalat, it appears to be just and necessary for considering the income of deceased at Rs.7,000/-p.m. and an addition of 10% has to be made towards future prospects. Thus the income of the deceased comes to Rs.7,700/- p.m. and the same has to be multiplied by 11 and further by 12. Thus, the total loss of the dependency comes to Rs.10,16,400/- (Rs.7,700/-x11x12). The claimants are entitled for 25% of this amount which comes to Rs.2,54,100/-. A sum of Rs.80,000/- is awarded towards parental consortium at the rate of Rs.40,000/- for each of the claimants, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/- towards loss to estate is awarded. Thus, the total loss of the dependency comes to Rs.10,16,400/- (Rs.7,700/-x11x12). The claimants are entitled for 25% of this amount which comes to Rs.2,54,100/-. A sum of Rs.80,000/- is awarded towards parental consortium at the rate of Rs.40,000/- for each of the claimants, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/- towards loss to estate is awarded. Thus the claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs.3,64,100/- as against the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.4,44,884/-. Thereby compensation amount is liable to be reduced. 16. The point for consideration is answered accordingly. In the result, this Court proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal is allowed in part. The claimants/respondents No.1 and 2 are awarded compensation of Rs.3,64,100/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till final realization. The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.