JUDGMENT : K Somashekar, J. Since these appeals arise out of a common judgment, they are heard together and are disposed of by this common order. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 - Insurance Company in both the appeals and perused the records. 3. The injured-claimants have preferred these appeals, being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in the impugned common judgment dated 23.05.2011, passed by the Fast Track Court and Additional MACT at Hassan made in MVC No.1941/2009 and MVC No.1942/2009, seeking enhancement of compensation. 4. The factual matrix of the appeals is that on 28.07.2009 when the appellant in MFA.No.8292/2011 was riding his motor vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-13-L-7074, along with the appellant in MFA No.8294/2011 as a pillion rider, while they were proceeding near K.M.F. dairy circle, the driver of the TATA AC goods auto bearing No.KA-12-8614, which was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the said bike, as a result of which, the appellant in both the appeals namely the rider and pillion rider sustained injuries. Both of them were shifted to the hospital, where they took treatment. Hence, they had filed claim petitions before the Tribunal seeking compensation. 5. After service of notice in both the petitions, the owner of the offending vehicle - Respondent No.2 herein has appeared through his counsel and filed objection statement denying the allegations of the petitions. Further he said that if any liability is fixed on him, it is to be paid by the respondent No.1 herein. However, Respondent No.1 - Insurer did appear before the tribunal, filed written statement and contested the claim petitions. During the enquiry before the tribunal, the claimant in both the appeals had established the occurrence of the accident, actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. 6. The Tribunal, after evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence has held that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligence of the driver of the offending TATA AC goods auto and consequently awarded total compensation of Rs.70,000/- in respect of the appellant in MFA 8292/2011 and Rs.5,000/- in respect of the appellant in MFA 8294/2011 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 7. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant in MFA No.8292/2011 vehemently contended that the income taken for awarding the amount towards loss of future income is on the lower side. Further, though PW-3 Doctor had assessed the permanent disability to the extent of 10 to 15%, but the Tribunal ought to have considered the same and awarded global compensation of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of amenities and loss of income due to disability. Further he contended that the award of compensation towards medical expenses, loss of income during laid up period and towards medical attendant and nutrition food are also inadequate and requires enhancement. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant in MFA No.8294/2011 vehemently contended that the appellant is a student who has sustained several simple injuries. The tribunal inspite of production of wound certificate and the testimony of the appellant has awarded global compensation of Rs.5,000/-. Hence, having regard to the injuries sustained, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal requires to be enhanced. 9. Thus, the learned counsel for the appellant in both the appeals seeks that the compensation awarded to the claimant in both the appeals may be enhanced having regard to the nature of the injuries sustained by the appellants. 10. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent - Insurer submitted that the Tribunal, on appreciation of the evidence and material on record has rightly assessed the income of the injured and awarded just and fair compensation in respect of both the claimants, which do not call for interference and prays for dismissal of both the appeals. 11. Keeping in view the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and the counter arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent, injured Rani, daughter of Hanumanthe Gowda, claimant in MVC No.1941/09 was aged 18 years and she sustained injuries in the road traffic accident occurred on 28.07.2009 due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle Tata Ace bearing registration No. KA-12-8614 by its driver when she was riding as a pillion along with her father Hanumanthe Gowda. However, the injured Rani sustained simple injuries. She was a student. The Tribunal considering the evidence of P.W.1 - Rani, awarded global compensation of Rs.5,000/- which is very meager. The injured has suffered pain and she has also spent some money towards medical expenses. She was treated by P.W.3 - doctor. However, the injured Rani sustained simple injuries. She was a student. The Tribunal considering the evidence of P.W.1 - Rani, awarded global compensation of Rs.5,000/- which is very meager. The injured has suffered pain and she has also spent some money towards medical expenses. She was treated by P.W.3 - doctor. The wound certificate at Ex.P.2 indicates that she has sustained only two simple injuries. However, these injuries are inflicted on her person. Therefore, a further sum of Rs.25,000/- is awarded to the injured claimant - Rani, in addition to Rs.5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, but this sum will not fetch any interest. 12. The injured - claimant, Hanumanthe Gowda, in MVC 1942/2009 sustained injuries as per Ex.P.7 - wound certificate and he sustained one grievous injury and two simple injuries. The Tribunal has awarded compensation globally in a sum of Rs.70,000/- which is very meager. He was an agriculturist. Keeping in view the evidence of P.W.1 - Hanumanthe Gowda, so also the evidence of the doctor - P.W.3 who treated him, he deserves additional compensation globally in a further sum of Rs.30,000/-, in addition to Rs.70,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. But the enhanced compensation will not fetch any interest. 13. However, keeping in view the reliance placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, (2017) 14 SCC 663 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has addressed in detail the issue relating to clause 2(d) read with Section 2(21) and Section 2(15) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it is held, licence to drive light motor vehicle includes licence to drive transport vehicle. Therefore, it does not call for any interference as addressing all the issues involved in this appeal are no more res integra. Therefore liability is saddled on the respondent - Insurance Co. and they shall pay the compensation to the claimants in terms of the judgment. 14. In terms of the aforesaid findings and reasons, I proceed to pass the following order : 14. MFA 8292/2011 relating to MVC 1942/2009 of the appellant/injured - Hanumanthe Gowda, is hereby allowed in part; consequently, the judgment and award is hereby modified and he is entitled for global compensation of Rs.30,000/-, but the same shall not fetch any interest. 15. In terms of the aforesaid findings and reasons, I proceed to pass the following order : 14. MFA 8292/2011 relating to MVC 1942/2009 of the appellant/injured - Hanumanthe Gowda, is hereby allowed in part; consequently, the judgment and award is hereby modified and he is entitled for global compensation of Rs.30,000/-, but the same shall not fetch any interest. 15. Mfa 8294/2011 relating to MVC 1941/2009 of the appellant/injured - Rani, is hereby allowed in part; consequently, the judgment and award is hereby modified and she is entitled for global compensation of Rs.25,000/- but the same shall not fetch any interest. The respondent - Insurance Co. is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount as awarded by the Tribunal as well as global compensation awarded by this Court in these appeals, before the Tribunal in MVC No.1941/09 and MVC No.1942/09, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, accordingly, the aforesaid judgments are modified. Office is directed to draw the decree accordingly.