JUDGMENT : P.G.M. Patil, J. The insurer being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 27.3.2013, passed in MVC No.984/2012, by the MACT-IX, Ballari, has filed this appeal. 2. It is the case of the claimant before the tribunal that, on 1.3.2012, at about 7.30 p.m., when the minor petitioner was proceeding in a bullock cart along with his family members, for the purpose of attending jatra, near Marammajji Temple, on NH-13, near Hosahalli of Kudligi taluka, the driver of TATA Ace auto bearing No.KA-35/A-7746 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the bullock cart, as a result the minor petitioner sustained grievous injuries and he was taken to Government Hospital, Jagalur and treated in other hospitals. The guardian of the minor incurred heavy medical expenses. Therefore compensation was claimed on behalf of the minor claimant against owner, driver and insurer of the of fending vehicle. 3. In pursuance of notice, respondents No.1 to 3 appeared before the tribunal. Respondent No.2 has filed the written statement which was adopted by the respondent No.1, wherein it is admitted that the respondent No.2 is the owner of the vehicle and respondent No.1 is the driver of the offending vehicle and respondent No.1 was holding valid driving license and vehicle is duly insured with respondent No.3. Therefore, if there is any liability, it may be saddled against respondent No.3. 4. Respondent No.3 insurer filed the written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition. The accident was not due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by respondent No.1. He has also denied the fracture injuries sustained by the claimant and medical expenses incurred. Respondent No.1 was not holding valid and effective driving license to drive such category of vehicle as on the date of accident and therefore there is violation of policy conditions. Hence he is not liable to pay the compensation. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the tribunal framed issues and additional issue. In support of the claim petition, the mother of the minor claimant got examined herself as PW.1 and also got marked 41 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.41. Respondent insurance company has got examined its official witness as RW.1 and got marked 3 documents as Exs.R.1 to R.3. In support of the claim petition, the mother of the minor claimant got examined herself as PW.1 and also got marked 41 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.41. Respondent insurance company has got examined its official witness as RW.1 and got marked 3 documents as Exs.R.1 to R.3. The learned member of the tribunal after hearing both the parties, passed the impugned judgment, awarding a compensation of Rs. 1,96,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition tillits realization. Respondents No.2 and 3 were jointly and severally held liable to pay the compensation. Respondent No.3 insurer was directed to deposit the compensation amount. 6. The insurer being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award, has filed this appeal on the grounds that the driver of the of fending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive goods carrying commercial vehicle and that he was holding a liccence to drive the LMV (NT) vehicle only and therefore there is a breach of policy condition and as such he is not liable to pay compensation. The insurer has also disputed the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal. 7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/insurer. 8. A short question which arises for consideration before this Court in this appeal is as to whether the insurer has made out grounds to set aside the liability saddled against him and to reduce the compensation. 9. The first contention raised on behalf of the appellant/insurer is that the respondent No.1 was holding a licence to drive LMV (NT) vehicle and was not possessing a vliad and effective driving licence to drive the of fending vehicle which is a goods carrying vehicle. Therefore there is a breach of policy condition. Hence the insurer is not liable to pay compensation. This contention is not available to the insurer in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2017) AIR SC 3668. In the said case the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the driver having valid and effective driving license to drive LMV non transport vehicle need not obtain a special endorsement for driving LMV transport or passenger vehicle. In the present case, it is admitted that respondent No.1 driver of the of fending vehicle was holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive LMV (NT). In the present case, it is admitted that respondent No.1 driver of the of fending vehicle was holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive LMV (NT). It is also admitted that the of fending vehicle is TATA Ace, which is a light motor transport vehicle. Therefore in view of the judgment stated supra, there is no violation of policy conditions and as such the insurer cannot be exonerated from its liability to pay compensation. 10. The other contention raised by the appellant insurer is that the compensation awarded by the tribunal is on higher side. The minor claimant sustained fracture injuries in the accident and four toes of the right foot were amputed. Considering the documents at Exs.P.39 to 41, the tribunal has considered 20% of disability of the whole body and has awarded compensation under all the available heads. Under these circumstances, this Court holds that the compensation awarded by the tribunal is just and proper. Therefore the impugned judgment and award does not call for any interference. Hence, the point for consideration is answered accordingly. 11. In the result, the appeal filed by the insurer is dismissed. The amount of compensation deposited by the appellant/insurer shall be transmitted to the tribunal forthwith, for disbursement. The order as to deposit and disbursement as passed by the tribunal holds good.