JUDGMENT Hanchate Sanjeevkumar, J. - Though the matter is listed for admission, with the consent of both the learned counsels, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. The appellant being the labourer under employment of respondent No.1 and when he was working in the tractor bearing Reg. No.KA-28/T-9918- 9919, which is owned by respondent No.1 and insured with respondent No.2/Insurance Company, during the course of employment, met with an accident and he had sustained injuries of loss of teeth and disfigurement to the face. As per Ex.P8 disability certificate, which shows the nature of injuries sustained by him is as follows: Disability Certificate Mr.Ambanna Tippana Kolur resident of gundal (OPD No.710/09) by age 25 years. According to previous records and patents history, there is history of RTA on 2/11/09 at 8:40 pm evening at Hanumsagar cross Kambagi Galgali road, On clinical examination, intra orally upper incisor, teeth and are found to be missing with tenderness felt over the upper front region of maxilla, frontal region of maxilla, bridge of nose and a extra oral lacerated wound is present on upper lip frontal region, radiographically radioopaque mass present in upper maxillary region suggestive of odontome. So to evaluate I had advised orthopentomograph (OPG) at Bijapur. From my opinion his disability will be around 30% to the face because even today patient cannot eat hard food, cannot speak properly and cannot present himself as he used to be earlier and gets pain over fractured region in cloudy climate, and he needs surgical removal of odontome. 3. The learned Senior Civil Judge/Commissioner for Employees Compensation (for short 'Commissioner'), Vijayapur, had granted a compensation of Rs.42,230/- along with interest @ 12% p.a. from 02.12.2009 after expiry of one month from the date of accident that is from 02.11.2009 till realization of the entire amount by holding the disability at 8%. 4. Upon hearing the learned counsel for both sides, the substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal is: "Whether considering the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant coupled with nature of job and whether assessment of compensation by the Commissioner is correct?" 5. In the present case, the learned Commissioner has held the monthly wage of the injured at Rs.4,000/- and considering 8% disability and multiplying with relevant factor thus awarded compensation. In the present case, the learned Commissioner has held the monthly wage of the injured at Rs.4,000/- and considering 8% disability and multiplying with relevant factor thus awarded compensation. Considering the nature of injuries and disability sustained as it is depicted in Ex.P8/disability certificate issued by the Doctor/PW.2 and had stated 30% disability towards the face, accordingly the learned Commissioner has taken into consideration 8% as disability and accordingly passed the award. 6. But upon considering the nature of injuries sustained and coupled with nature of avocation as appellant/claimant was working as labourer in the tractor, the injury is to the face and to the teeth also. There is also mentioned that injuries sustained not only to the teeth, but also to the bridge of nose and extraoral lacerated wound is present on upper lip frontal region and certainly the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant occurs disability and it certainly affects the earning capacity of the appellant/claimant. 7. Considering these factors what the learned Commissioner held the disability at 8% is on the lower side. Therefore, I am of the opinion that if 10% of disability is taken into consideration by considering the nature of injuries sustained that gives justice. Now the appellant/claimant cannot chew hard food, cannot speak properly and cannot perform coolie work effectively as he used to do earlier and gets pain over fractured region and certainly it affects physical strength while doing coolie work. Therefore, I am of the opinion that if compensation amount is to be calculated considering permanent total disablement at 10% would be just and proper. Accordingly, by taking into consideration at 10% permanent total disability, the amount of compensation would be determined and accordingly the appellant/claimant is entitled to compensation as described below: Rs.4,000/- x 60% x 219.95 x 10% = Rs.52,788/-. 8. Therefore, the appellant/claimant is entitled enhanced compensation of Rs.52,788/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of accident as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pratap Narain Singh Deo vs. Srinivas Sabata and Another, (1976) 1 SCC 289 and Saberabibi Yakubbhai Shaikh and Others vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Others, (2014) 2 SCC 298 . 9. Regarding liability, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the liability of payment of compensation is fixed on the respondent No.1/owner by exonerating respondent No.2/insurance company. 9. Regarding liability, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the liability of payment of compensation is fixed on the respondent No.1/owner by exonerating respondent No.2/insurance company. Further submitted that the observations made by the learned Senior Civil Judge/Commissioner that the petitioner was holding driving licence for driving light motor vehicle, but not holding driving licence to drive transport vehicle and in the present case the vehicle is in question is transport vehicle, thus, there is a breach of conditions of policy and on this basis putting liability on respondent No.1/owner is not correct. Therefore, submitted that there is no breach of conditions of policy. In support of his argument, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2017) AIR SC 3668 . 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2/insurance company submitted that the learned Senior Civil Judge/Commissioner fastened liability on the respondent No.1/owner and there is no need to interfere with the judgment and award of the Commissioner so far as putting liability on respondent No.1. 11. Further submitted, in the present case as per Ex.R2/driving licence the petitioner was holding driving licence for driving light motor vehicle-tractor. In the present case, the petitioner was working as a driver of the tractor and at the instructions of his employer/respondent No.1, the petitioner was driving the tractor and trailer. It is the contention of the learned counsel for respondent No.2 that since the appellant was driving the tractor-trailer, which cannot be termed as a light motor vehicle, but attachment of trailer to the tractor becomes a transport vehicle. Thus, contended that the appellant was not holding driving licence to drive transport vehicle since there is no endorsement on the driving licence to drive the transport vehicle. Hence, submitted respondent No.2 is rightly exonerated from payment of compensation. 12. Thus, contended that the appellant was not holding driving licence to drive transport vehicle since there is no endorsement on the driving licence to drive the transport vehicle. Hence, submitted respondent No.2 is rightly exonerated from payment of compensation. 12. In this background of facts and circumstances of the present case, I must place reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan case (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court while interpreting the definition of "heavy goods vehicle", "heavy passenger motor vehicle", "light motor vehicle", "medium goods vehicle", "medium passenger motor vehicle", "gross vehicle weight", "unladen weight", "transport vehicle", "educational institution bus", "goods carriage", "private service vehicle", "public service vehicle", "motor car", "omnibus", "tractor", etc and were pleased to observe in para-45 and para-46 as follows: "45. Transport vehicle has been defined in section 2(47) of the Act, to mean a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle. Public service vehicle has been defined in section 2(35) to mean any motor vehicle used or adapted to be used for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward and includes a maxicab, a motor cab, contract carriage, and stage carriage. Goods carriage which is also a transport vehicle is defined in section 2(14) to mean a motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use solely for the carriage of goods, or any motor vehicle not so constructed or adapted when used for the carriage of goods. It was rightly submitted that a person holding licence to drive light motor vehicle registered for private use, who is driving a similar vehicle which is registered or insured, for the purpose of carrying passengers for hire or reward, would not require an endorsement as to drive a transport vehicle, as the same is not contemplated by the provisions of the Act. It was also rightly contended that there are several vehicles which can be used for private use as well as for carrying passengers for hire or reward. When a driver is authorised to drive a vehicle, he can drive it irrespective of the fact whether it is used for a private purpose or for purpose of hire or reward or for carrying the goods in the said vehicle. It is what is intended by the provision of the Act, and the Amendment Act 54/1994. 46. When a driver is authorised to drive a vehicle, he can drive it irrespective of the fact whether it is used for a private purpose or for purpose of hire or reward or for carrying the goods in the said vehicle. It is what is intended by the provision of the Act, and the Amendment Act 54/1994. 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 preamended 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. (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." 13. Therefore, in the present case the petitioner was holding driving licence of light motor vehicle and was driving tractor attached with trailer. Therefore, in the light of the principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the present case there is no breach of conditions of policy is found. Therefore, in the present case the petitioner was holding driving licence of light motor vehicle and was driving tractor attached with trailer. Therefore, in the light of the principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the present case there is no breach of conditions of policy is found. There is always difference between a driver to hold licence with respect to the class of the vehicle and with respect of the type of vehicles. 14. Further more in the present case the petitioner was driving the tractor for private purpose and not as a public service vehicle. In the present case it is the case of the petitioner that he was driving tractor for private use for agricultural work as per instructions given by respondent No.1/owner. There is no contra evidence produced by respondent No.2 that the petitioner was not authorised to drive tractor-trailer. Mentioning endorsement as 'transport vehicle' is not required in driving licence. 15. After analyzing the evidence on record as discussed above, the present case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated supra so far as driving licence is concerned. Thus, the observations made by the Senior Civil Judge/Commissioner is not correct. Therefore, respondent No.2/insurance company is liable to pay compensation. Accordingly, respondent No.1/owner is exonerated for payment of compensation. Thus, the appeal succeeds in part. Hence, I pass the following: ORDER The appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 11.04.2016 passed in ECA No.458/2014 by the III-Addl. Senior Civil Judge/Commissioner for Employees Compensation, Vijayapur, is modified to the extent that the appellant is entitled compensation of Rs.52,788/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of accident and liability is fixed on respondent No.2/insurance company. The respondent No.2/insurance company shall pay the compensation amount with interest from the date of the accident as above stated.