JUDGMENT 1. This appeal by the New India Assurance Company Limited with whom the owner of Tata Mobile bearing registration No. JK14-B-1172 was insured. The appellant is aggrieved of the Award made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu dated 21.04.2017 awarding a sum of Rs.3,47,506/- along with 7.5% per annum interest to the respondent No.1 (hereinafter to be referred as the claimant). 2. The case of the appellant is that the accident involving vehicle No. JK14-B-1172 took place on 30.07.2012 at 10 p.m. near Chak Mal within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Bishnah where the claimant while riding a motorcycle bearing registration No. JK02AM-1038 coming from the opposite direction was hit by the offending vehicle. On account of the accident, the claimant/respondent No.1 suffered compound fracture on right tibia and fracture in right SOF with trauma to right thigh, right hand and right leg. He was first treated in Government Medical Hospital, Jammu and Dr. Karam Singh Memorial Orthopedic Hospital and Research Centre and Multispeciality, Amritsar, where he was operated and tibia nail and femur nail has been inserted during his operation. He claimed Rs. 2,32,466/- as medical expenses and Rs.3 lac as damages for mental shock and agony, Rs. 3 lac as damages for pain and suffering, Rs.15 lac for loss of future earnings, in addition to medical expenses, thus, a total compensation of Rs.26,32,466/-. 3. The owner and the driver did not appear and were set ex-parte and vide order dated 07.03.2014, the following issues were framed:— “1. Whether an accident took place on 30.07.2012 at 10.00 p.m. near Chak Mal by rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing registration No. JK14B-1172 by its driver as a result of which petitioner Ajay Kumar received grievous injuries and has been disabled? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so to what amount and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the offending vehicle was being driven in contravention of terms and conditions of policy of insurance? If so to what effect? OPR-3 4. Relief? O.P. Parties.” 4. The claimant besides his statement examined one, Bunty Kumar, who claimed to be the pillion rider with him, Dr. Suhail Bashir, Consultant Ortho Surgeon of Government Hospital, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu. 5. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held that the driver of the offending vehicle was responsible for the accident. If so to what effect? OPR-3 4. Relief? O.P. Parties.” 4. The claimant besides his statement examined one, Bunty Kumar, who claimed to be the pillion rider with him, Dr. Suhail Bashir, Consultant Ortho Surgeon of Government Hospital, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu. 5. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held that the driver of the offending vehicle was responsible for the accident. While deciding issue No.1, the Tribunal awarded the following amount as compensation under the following heads:— “1. Loss of future income Rs. 68,040/- 2. Expenses on medicine Rs. 2,32,466/- 3. Pain and sufferings Rs. 10,000/- 4. Loss of amenities Rs. 6000/- 5. Fare of vehicle Rs. 10,000/- 6. Expenses of two attendants Rs. 16,000/- 7. Special diet and nutrition Rs. 5,000/- Total Rs.3,47,506/- 6. The appellant is aggrieved of the award on the ground that the bills, which have been proved, and the nature of injuries suffered, by the claimant, the award does not justify such huge expenses without any evidence. 7. The Tribunal wrongly refused to summon respondent Nos. 1 & 2 whose diet expenses had been deposited. 8. That the award is found to be surmises conjunction because even the petitioner has no where stated about the loss of future income. 9. The statement of the injured/claimant is only with regard to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and the injuries he suffered besides the expenses incurred by him on his treatment. Regarding negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, PW-Bunty Kumar, who was the pillion rider, with whom has corroborated his version and assuming that the claimant had also contributed to the accident but this question could only be asked to the respondent/driver or the owner since neither the driver or the owner appear to give counter version of the occurrence in the absence of evidence of injured. Statement of PW-Bunty Kumar remains unchanged and the Tribunal was justified in holding that the driver of the offending vehicle was responsible for the accident. The next ground that the appellant wanted driver and owner to be examined as witnesses both are respondents. Appellant could summon the respondents only after given some reasons and not to prove the defense which it could prove even otherwise by producing the witness from RTO from where the driving license was issued but this course was also not followed. 10. Appellant could summon the respondents only after given some reasons and not to prove the defense which it could prove even otherwise by producing the witness from RTO from where the driving license was issued but this course was also not followed. 10. However, moot question is whether the driver/respondent was holding a valid driving license. The precise question of the appellant is that the driving license of the driver of Vehicle (Tata Mobile Load Carrier 207/31) bearing registration No.JK14-B-1172 was not valid as the driver was authorized to drive only Light Motor Vehicle and not Goods Vehicle. However, the law is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. reported as (2017) 14 SCC, 663. Para (46) of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:— “46. Section 10 of the Act requires a driver to hold a licence with respect to the class of vehicles and not with respect to the type of vehicles. In one class of vehicles, there may be different kinds of vehicles. If they fall in the same class of vehicles, no separate endorsement is required to drive such vehicles. As light motor vehicle includes transport vehicle also, a holder of light motor vehicle licence can drive all the vehicles of the class including transport vehicles. It was pre-amended position as well the post-amended position of Form 4 as amended on 28.3.2001. Any other interpretation would be repugnant to the definition of “light motor vehicle” in section 2(21) and the provisions of section 10(2)(d), Rule 8 of the Rules of 1989, other provisions and also the forms which are in tune with the provisions. Even otherwise the forms never intended to exclude transport vehicles from the category of ‘light motor vehicles’ and for light motor vehicle, the validity period of such licence hold good and apply for the transport vehicle of such class also and the expression in Section 10(2)(e) of the Act ‘Transport Vehicle’ would include medium goods vehicle, medium passenger motor vehicle, heavy goods vehicle, heavy passenger motor vehicle which earlier found place in section 10(2)(e) to (h) and our conclusion is fortified by the syllabus and rules which we have discussed. Thus we answer the questions which are referred to us thus:— (i) ‘Light motor vehicle’ as defined in section 2(21) of the Act would include a transport vehicle as per the weight prescribed in section 2(21) read with section 2(15) and 2(48). Such transport vehicles are not excluded from the definition of the light motor vehicle by virtue of Amendment Act No.54/1994. (ii) A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg. would be a light motor vehicle and also motor car or tractor or a road roller, ‘unladen weight’ of which does not exceed 7500 kg. and holder of a driving licence to drive class of “light motor vehicle” as provided in section 10(2)(d) is competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg. or a motor car or tractor or road-roller, the “unladen weight” of which does not exceed 7500 kg. That is to say, no separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class as enumerated above. A licence issued under section 10(2)(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54/1994 and 28.3.2001 in the form. (iii) The effect of the amendment made by virtue of Act No.54/1994 w.e.f. 14.11.1994 while substituting clauses (e) to (h) of section 10(2) which contained “medium goods vehicle” in section 10(2)(e), medium passenger motor vehicle in section 10(2)(f), heavy goods vehicle in section 10(2)(g)and “heavy passenger motor vehicle” in section 10(2)(h) with expression ‘transport vehicle’ as substituted in section 10(2)(e) related only to the aforesaid substituted classes only. It does not exclude transport vehicle, from the purview of section 10(2)(d) and section 2(41) of the Act i.e. light motor vehicle. (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, and 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. 11. 11. In view of the above, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the driving license of the offending vehicle has a valid license because he relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ashok Ganga Dhar Martha v. Oriental Insurance Co. Limited, reported as AIR 1999 SC 3181 and this Court in National Insurance Company Vs. Rameez Ahmed Nanda, reported as 2015(1) SLJ 45. 12. That apart, according to Dr. Suhail Bashir, although the disability of the lower limb has been assessed by the Doctor at 6% but this disability is to be reduced at 1/3rd when compared to the whole body. Thus, the permanent disability of the whole body would be 2%. This statement of the Doctor notwithstanding the Tribunal awarded Rs.68,040/- as loss of future income when there is not even whisper in the statement of claimant, Ajay Kumar, that his service career would be affected as he is a police constable and he would not be able to do the job properly. It was for the petitioner to make out a case that his promotional chances are adversely affected. He has neither any limb nor any constriction. The petitioner was only 26 years of age at the time of accident and according to the Doctor the disability would affect throughout his life because he will have difficulty in sitting, scatting, climbing and even running. The Tribunal has been a silent spectator while examining the Doctor because the relevant questions were not put to him. The bone at the age of injured are likely to heal and disability would disappear but does not possible to substitute the opinion of the Doctor though the Tribunal should have asked this question to him when he made such a sweeping statement. Another sweeping statement made by the Doctor is that the bills on the file for medicines and treatment pertain to the injury. This statement has been made so casually by the witness but even this did not move the Tribunal to ask as to how many bills could be verified by him. 13. The petitioner has got the stamp of Dr. Karam Singh Memorial Orthopedic Hospital and Research Centre and Multispeciality, Amritsar put on these bills, who has signed these bills and who has verified them has not been disclosed. So apparently no reliance can be placed on these bills for the following reasons:— 1. 13. The petitioner has got the stamp of Dr. Karam Singh Memorial Orthopedic Hospital and Research Centre and Multispeciality, Amritsar put on these bills, who has signed these bills and who has verified them has not been disclosed. So apparently no reliance can be placed on these bills for the following reasons:— 1. Although the date of accident is 30.07.2012 but at the back of these bills, since reads “Dr. Karam Singh Memorial Orthopedic and Multi Specialty Hospital, medicine issue report from 1st April, 2012 to 16.08.2012. 2. This apart, there is no date on which these bills were signed and by the person whose identify cannot be discerned from the way he has signed and it is not a small amount because an amount of Rs.2,32,466/- has been awarded as expenses on medicines. 14. The Tribunal, it appears has not scanned the bills before accepting the expenses on medicines. 15. In the last bill dated 16.08.2012, the amount of Rs.1,12,611/-. 16. Since the bills only pertains to the medicines issued by the Hospital, Dr. Karam Singh Memorial Orthopedic Hospital and Research Centre and Multispeciality, Amritsar. The claimant should have examined either by the Doctor, who prescribed the medicine or the person, who used to issue the medicines from the hospital to prove these bills. Mere stamp of private hospital does not prove the authenticity of the bills. Moreover, the persons, who have signed on the bills and stamp has not even disclosed his name. The cost of total medicine as per these issue report is Rs.1,12,611/- but there is no prescription along with these bills. In fact there is no medical record of the surgeon, who operated on the claimant since there must have been surgical record evidencing the surgery of the limb and for how many days the claimant was hospitalized, but apparently there is nothing on record. 17. As per the legal requirement, these bills must be proved, therefore, no reliance can be placed on these bills. However, the injury suffered by the petitioner has not been denied and his statement to this effect remains unchallenged, therefore, a consolidated amount of Rs.15,000/- is awarded as medical expenses, as he has undergone two operations. He is also entitled to Rs.15000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.10,000/- for loss of amenities of life, Rs.10,000/- as transport charges from Amritsar to back. He is also entitled to Rs.15000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.10,000/- for loss of amenities of life, Rs.10,000/- as transport charges from Amritsar to back. The Tribunal has also awarded Rs.16000/- for two attendants which is not required in terms of the disability suffered by the petitioner but an amount of Rs.10,000/- is justified for attendant, who stayed with him in Amritsar from 01.04.2012 to 16.08.2012. 18. In view of the above, this appeal is allowed and the award of the Tribunal is modified and the claimant is held entitled to the following amount of compensation along with interest as has been awarded by the Tribunal, Rs.68,040/- on account of loss of future income, Rs.15,000/- on account of medical expenses, Rs.15,000/- on account of pain and suffering, Rs.10,000/- as loss of amenities, Rs.10,000/- as transport charges, Rs.10,000/- for two attendants and Rs.5000/- on account of special diet and nutrition (totaling Rs.1,33,040/-) along with interest as awarded by the Tribunal.