JUDGMENT : P.G.M. PATIL, J. 1. The claimant and the insurer Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 03.06.2014 by the MACT-II, Yadgiri have filed these appeals. 2. It is the case of the petitioner before the tribunal that on 11.11.2011 at about 4.00 p.m., the petitioner was proceeding near the land of Saibanna Talwar on motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-33 J-1391 towards Bachwar village on extremely left side of the road, at that time the driver of cruser jeep bearing Reg.No.KA-32-A-7288 came from the opposite direction in a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle causing accident. The petitioner sustained grievous injuries to medial tibial condyle, upper shaft of fibula both the knees and on other parts of body. He took treatment at Government General Hospital, Yadgiri, Sanjeevini Multispecialty Hospital, Gulbarga still he is under treatment of Dr. B.S.Hiremath, Bones and Joint Specialists at Yadgiri and Dr. Neelkant Saidapur, Orthopedic Surgeon, Yadgiri. He has spent Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenses. He was hale and healthy, aged 33 years and working as a LIC Agent and Pigmy collector and earning Rs.20,000/- per month. Now he has become disabled. This petition was heard along with MVC No.125/2012 and a common judgment was passed. 3. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained absent in spite of service of notice. Respondent No.3 the insurer appeared through his counsel and filed written statement. He has contended that the petition is not maintainable and that the vehicle of the respondent No.1 was insured with respondent No.3. However, his liability is subject to terms and conditions of the policy. He has denied that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. He has denied the age, occupation and injuries sustained by the petitioner and also medical expenses. The accident took place due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle. Therefore, the owner and insurer of the motorcycle are necessary parties. Hence, he is not liable to pay compensation. He has further contended that the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid driving licence to drive the said vehicle, on these grounds petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. The Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed issues. 5. The claimant-petitioner got examined himself as PW1 and one witness as PW2 and got marked 22 documents. 4. The Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed issues. 5. The claimant-petitioner got examined himself as PW1 and one witness as PW2 and got marked 22 documents. Thereafter, the respondents have got examined two witnesses as RW1 and RW2 and got marked 7 documents. The learned Member of the Tribunal after hearing both the parties, passed the impugned judgment awarding compensation of Rs.2,41,785/- in MVC No.126/2012 together interest at 6% from the date of petition till realization and respondent No.3 insurer was directed to deposit the compensation amount. 6. The insurer has filed MFA No.201284/2014 contending that the saddling of the liability on him is erroneous and that he has proved before the tribunal that the driver of the vehicle had no driving licence. 7. The claimant being dissatisfied with the award has filed a MFA CROB No.200032/2015 seeking enhancement of the compensation under all the heads. 8. The learned counsel for the insurer vehemently contended that the insurer has got examined RTO to prove that there was no valid driving licence and that Ex.R5 driving licence is in respect of LMV (NT) vehicle and further that the driving licence for transport vehicle was valid for the period from 03.09.2007 to 02.09.2010 and that the accident in question occurred on 11.11.2011. Therefore, the driver had no valid driving licence as on the date of the accident and that the award passed is in violation of Sections 3, 5, 10, 11, 15 and 41 of the M.V.Act. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimant submitted that in view of the judgment in the case of Mukund Dewangan V/s Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2017) AIR SC 3668, the insurer is liable to pay the compensation and there is no necessity of obtaining endorsement for driving the transport vehicle when the driver had already driving licence to drive LMV (NT) as per Ex.R5. Further the learned counsel also submitted that compensation awarded on all the heads is on lower side. 10. Heard the learned counsel for the parties in both the cases. Now the following points arise for consideration before this Court. (1) Whether the insurer has made out grounds for exonerating him from the liability saddled against him? (2) Whether the claimant has made out grounds for enhancement of the compensation? 11. 10. Heard the learned counsel for the parties in both the cases. Now the following points arise for consideration before this Court. (1) Whether the insurer has made out grounds for exonerating him from the liability saddled against him? (2) Whether the claimant has made out grounds for enhancement of the compensation? 11. The insurer has taken a specific contention in the written statement that the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid and effective driving licence to drive the said vehicle as on the date of the accident. Therefore, he is not liable to pay the compensation. However, the tribunal has not framed a specific issue on this contention. It is not disputed that Ex.R1, the policy issued in respect of offending vehicle was in force at the time of accident. The respondent-insurance company has got produced Ex.R5 the driving licence of respondent No.2, according to which the driver of the offending vehicle had LMV DL which was valid up to 26.10.2017. Further that he had transport driving licence renewed up to 2010. RW2, the witness examined by the respondents has also stated that the driver is having a driving licence to drive the light motor vehicle is authorized to drive light motor transport vehicle. Therefore, Ex.R5 is sufficient to prove that the driver of the offending vehicle namely respondent No.2 had valid and effective driving licence to drive LMV (NT) vehicle as on the date of the accident. The vehicle involved in the accident is Cruser jeep which is classified as transport vehicle. Therefore, the question which arise for consideration before this Court is whether Ex.R5 driving licence for LMV (NT) vehicle is valid for driving Transport vehicle without obtaining special endorsement. In this regard, the point of law is now settled by the pronouncement by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan V/s Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2017) AIR SC 3668. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case has held as follows: "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. 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 roadroller, the "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 roadroller, 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." 12. In a similar case in the case of Syed Liyakat Patel V/s Syed Dastagir and another in MFA No.31732/2013 decided on 07.02.2019, this Court has held by applying the decision in the case of Mukund Dewangan stated supra that the liability fastened on the insurer even in the case where the driving licence issued for light motor vehicle was valid even when vehicle involved is a transport vehicle. The learned counsel for the claimant has also relied on the case of Kulwant Singh and others V/s Oriental Insurance Company Limited, in Civil Appeal Nos.9929-30 of 2014 decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 28.10.2014. The learned counsel for the claimant has also relied on the case of Kulwant Singh and others V/s Oriental Insurance Company Limited, in Civil Appeal Nos.9929-30 of 2014 decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 28.10.2014. The learned counsel for the insurer has also fairly submitted that the case is covered by the Principles laid down in Mukund Dewangan stated supra. The learned counsel further submitted that the insurer in this case has sought for reference of the judgment in Mukund Dewangan case for the decision before the larger bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Under these circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the findings of the tribunal saddling liability on respondent No.3 the insurer. Accordingly, I hold that the insurer has not made out any grounds for exonerating him from the liability saddling against him. Therefore, the appeal filed by the insurer is liable to be dismissed. 13. The petitioner-claimant has got examined himself as PW1 and also Dr. B.S.Hiremath as PW2 in order to prove the injuries sustained by him. He has produced Ex.P5 wound certificate which goes to show that the petitioner sustained fracture of left medial tibial condyle, upper shaft of fibula. On assessing the evidence of the doctor and the disability certificate produced at Ex.P11, the tribunal has considered the permanent disability of the petitioner at 14% of the whole body which does not call for any interference. The learned counsel for the claimant submitted that Ex.P20 to Ex.P22 are form No.16 showing the annual income of the petitioner and highest income of Rs.8,377/- per month ought to have been considered by the tribunal. However, the tribunal after examining these documents has taken average income of Rs.6,458/- per month in order to assess the loss of future income due to 14% disability which is proper. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for compensation towards loss of future income at Rs.1,08,440/- (6458 x 12 x 17 x 14%). The tribunal has awarded Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering which is on the lower side, considering the fracture injuries sustained by the petitioner. Therefore, a sum of Rs.50,000/- is awarded towards pain and suffering. Further, the tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/- towards loss of amenities which is enhanced to Rs.50,000/-. The tribunal has awarded only Rs.645/- towards loss of income during the period of treatment which is on the lower side. Therefore, a sum of Rs.50,000/- is awarded towards pain and suffering. Further, the tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/- towards loss of amenities which is enhanced to Rs.50,000/-. The tribunal has awarded only Rs.645/- towards loss of income during the period of treatment which is on the lower side. Therefore, the loss of income during the period of treatment for three months at the rate of Rs.6,458/- is awarded which comes to Rs.19,374/-. Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards attendant's charges and nourishment. Rs.6,250/- awarded towards medical expenses is retained. Thus on reassessment of the compensation, the petitioner is entitled for total compensation of Rs.3,20,064/- as against the compensation awarded by the tribunal at Rs.2,41,785/-. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.78,279/-. The impugned award needs to be modified accordingly. In the result, I proceed to pass the following. ORDER MFA No.201284/2014 is hereby dismissed. MFA CROB No.200032/2015 is allowed in part. The petitioner is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.78,279/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.