JUDGMENT Mohammad Nawaz, J. - Mfa No.2928/2013 is filed by the insurance Company challenging the quantum of compensation as well as the findings recorded by the Tribunal regarding pay and recovery. MFA No.9507/2013 is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. The Tribunal by its judgment and award dated 03.01.2013 passed in MVC No. 259/2010 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Udupi has awarded a total compensation of Rs.5,33,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% interest per annum to the claimants for the death of one Shekar Poojary in a road traffic accident, which occurred on 26.12.2009 at about 9.10 p.m while he was walking by the side of Jarkala Bailoor PWD road along with his brother-in-law Vijaya Poojary. 3. It is the case of the appellants that the driver of an auto rickshaw bearing Registration No.KA.20.8924 by driving the said auto rickshaw in a rash and negligent manner dashed against Shekar Poojary, as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the said injuries. 4. The claimants are the wife and the three major sons of the deceased. A total compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- was claimed before the tribunal. 5. The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record has awarded a compensation of Rs.5,33,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. 6. The Tribunal has held that respondent No.1 insurance Company was liable to pay the compensation to the claimants and further directed that after satisfying the award it is entitled to recover the amount from the insured i.e., respondent No.1. 7. Assailing the aforesaid judgment and award passed by the tribunal, the learned counsel appearing for the insurance company would vehemently contend that the vehicle in question is a transport vehicle. The driver of the said vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence to drive a transport vehicle, on the other hand, he was holding a driving licence to drive only LMV. Therefore, it is contended that the tribunal was not justified in fastening the liability on the insurance company to pay the compensation in the first instance and then to recover from the insured. 8. Therefore, it is contended that the tribunal was not justified in fastening the liability on the insurance company to pay the compensation in the first instance and then to recover from the insured. 8. The learned counsel for the insurance company would further contend that instead of awarding a sum of Rs.70,000/-, a sum of Rs.93,000/- is awarded under the conventional heads, which is not in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ' NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., VS PRANAY SETTI AND OTHERS, (2017) 16 SCC 680 . Accordingly, he seeks to allow the appeal. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants would contend that the claimants are the wife and four sons of the deceased. The deceased was earning a sum of Rs.12,000/- by doing coolie work. All the claimants were depending on the income of the deceased. Hence, he submits that the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and seeks to enhance the compensation. The learned counsel further contends that in view of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ' MUKUND DEWANGAN VS. ORIENTAL INS. CO., LTD, (2017) AIR SC 3668 the insurance company is solely liable to pay the compensation. 10. The accident in question and the actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle has not been seriously disputed. According to the claimants, the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.12,000/- p.m. by doing coolie work. Except the oral testimony of the wife of deceased, examined as PW.1, there is no other convincing material placed on record to show that the deceased was infact earning a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month. Considering the year of accident and in the facts of the present case, the notional income of the deceased is assessed at Rs.5,000/- per month. The deceased being aged about 55 years, 10% of the income has to be added towards future prospects. The appropriate multiplier applicable is 11. 11. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the claimants that all the claimants were depending on the income of the deceased. The first appellant is wife of the deceased. It is noticed that other claimants are major sons of the deceased. Two of the sons are employed in Mumbai and they are having separate income. 11. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the claimants that all the claimants were depending on the income of the deceased. The first appellant is wife of the deceased. It is noticed that other claimants are major sons of the deceased. Two of the sons are employed in Mumbai and they are having separate income. Hence, in the instant case, 1/3rd of the income shall have to be deducted towards the personal expenditure of the deceased. Hence, the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.4,84,000/- (5,500 x 2/3 x 11 x 12) towards loss of dependency. 12. In the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ' NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., VS PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS, (2017) 16 SCC 680 a total sum of Rs.70,000/- is awarded under the conventional heads. 13. Hon'Ble Apex Court in the case of 'MUKUND DEWANGAN (supra) has held that if the gross weight of the vehicle is less than 7,500/- kg then no separate endorsement is required in the driving licence held by the driver to drive a LMV to drive a transport vehicle. It is not the case of the insurer that the gross weight of the vehicle is more than 7,500/- Kg. In fact the vehicle in question is an auto riskshaw. The gross weight is less than 7,500/- kg. Hence, the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the insured is liable to pay the compensation. Further directing the insurance Company to recover the compensation from the insured after satisfying the award. 14. With the above observations, the following order is passed. ORDER The judgment and award dated 03.01.2013 passed in MVC No. No.259/2010 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and Additional Mact, Udupi, is hereby modified. The appellants/claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.5,54,000/- with interest at 6% per annum. The insurance company shall deposit the compensation amount within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The amount in deposit in MFA No.9507/2013 shall be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith. Disbursement of compensation shall be as per the award passed by the Tribunal. Both the appeals are disposed off.