JUDGMENT 1. M.F.A.No.7168/2014 has been filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) by the insurance company whereas, M.F.A.No.131/2015 has been filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation. Since, both the appeals arise out of the same accident as well as a common judgment, they were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. 2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 08.12.2011, at about 6.00 p.m. the claimant was proceeding on his bike bearing registration No.JC-40/E-001529 along with other person from Udayapura to Channarayapatna. When he reached Kathrighatta gate, the driver of the Indica car bearing registration No.KA-01/C-9937 drove the same at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the bike. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalised. 3. The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act on the ground that he has undergone surgical operation and implants are fixed and he was inpatient for one month and after discharge he took treatment as out paitne. He spent 2,00,000/- towards medical expenses. It was further pleaded that claimant was vending milk, engaged in mechanical work and also agricultural work and was earning 25,000/- p.m. and on account of the accident he was unable to carry on any work and there is loss of income to the claimant and his family members are also suffering and the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car. On service of notice, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed written statement in which the averments made in the petition were denied. It was pleaded that the driver of the car as well as the rider of the motorcycle were not having valid driving licence and the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. The age, occupation, income and nature of work and amount spent towards medical treatment are denied. It was further pleaded that the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimant is exorbitant. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition. Respondent No.1 even though served has not appeared and was placed exparte. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. It was further pleaded that the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimant is exorbitant. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition. Respondent No.1 even though served has not appeared and was placed exparte. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimant examined himself as PW-1 and Dr.V.Mahesh as PW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P37. On behalf of the respondents, an officer of the insurance company was examined as RW-1 and an officer of the RTO was examined as RW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.R1 to Ex.R5. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the car by its driver, as a result of which, the claimant sustained injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of 2,13,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. Being aggrieved, insurance company has filed MFA No.7168/2014 seeking reduction of compensation and claimant has filed MFA No.131/2015 seeking enhancement of compensation. 5. Learned counsel for the claimant submitted that at the time of the accident claimant was aged about 30 years and he was vending milk, doing mechanic work and agricultural work and was earning 25,000/- per month but the Tribunal has taken the notional income as only 4,500/- per month. Secondly, due to the accident claimant had suffered grievous injuries, he has undergone surgery and he has suffered lot of pain during the course of treatment and the compensation awarded under the head pain and agony and also loss of comfort are on the lower side. Thirdly, the claimant was in the hospital for more than one month and has taken follow up treatment and taken rest for more than two months. The compensation awarded by the Tribuanal under the heads attendant charges, conveyance charges and nutrition and nourishment are on the lower side. Fourthly, the doctor PW-2 has opined that the claimant needs amount of Rs.20,000/- for future medical expenses but the Tribunal has granted only a sum of Rs.10,000/-. Hence, he sought for enhancement of the compensation. 6. The compensation awarded by the Tribuanal under the heads attendant charges, conveyance charges and nutrition and nourishment are on the lower side. Fourthly, the doctor PW-2 has opined that the claimant needs amount of Rs.20,000/- for future medical expenses but the Tribunal has granted only a sum of Rs.10,000/-. Hence, he sought for enhancement of the compensation. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that even though the claimant has claimed that he was earning 25,000/- per month, but he has not produced any documentary evidence to establish the aforesaid fact and therefore the Tribunal has rightly considered the notional income of the claimant as 4,500/-. Secondly, the amount of compensation which has been awarded is just and proper and does not call for interference. Thirdly, at the time of the accident the driver of the car was having licence to drive LMV (non-transport) vehicle, but he was driving the transport vehicle without an endorsement. Hence, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation and prays for allowing the appeal filed by the insurance company. 7. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Admittedly, the claimant at the time of accident was aged 30 years and was a mechanic. He has not produced any evidence with regard to his income. Therefore, the notional income has to be assessed as per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. Since the accident has taken place in the year 2011, the notional income has to be taken at 6,500/- p.m. Since the monthly income of the claimant has been assessed at 6,500/- the compensation granted by the Tribunal under the head loss of income during laid up period has to be enhanced. At the time of the accident the age of the claimant was 30 years and the multiplier applicable is 17. Taking into consideration the disability at 10% as assessed by the Tribunal, the claimant is entitled to 1,32,600/- on account of loss of future earning capacity ('6,500 x 12 x 17 x 10/100). The claimant has suffered grievous injuries and remained inpatient for more than one month and thereafter, has received treatment. Taking into consideration the disability at 10% as assessed by the Tribunal, the claimant is entitled to 1,32,600/- on account of loss of future earning capacity ('6,500 x 12 x 17 x 10/100). The claimant has suffered grievous injuries and remained inpatient for more than one month and thereafter, has received treatment. Therefore, it can safely be inferred that he was under treatment for more than three months and hence, he is entitled to 19,500/- ('6,500 x 3) on account of loss of income during the period of treatment. Since the claimant has suffered grievous injuries and was under treatment for more than 50 days. Hence, we are inclined to enhance the compensation awarded under the head attendant charges, conveyance, nutrition etc. from 14,200/- to 44,200/-. The doctor CW1 in his evidence has deposed that claimant requires 20,000/- for future medical expenses. Hence, we are inclined to enhance the compensation awarded under the head future medical expenses from 10,000/- to 20,000/-. Since the claimant has suffered a lot of pain and has to suffer with the disability throughout his life, we are inclined to enhance the compensation under the heads pain and suffering from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.50,000/- and the compensation under loss of comfort and amenities from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.30,000/-. The compensation granted under the heads medical expenses remains unaltered. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified as under: Compensation under different Categories As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.) As awarded by this Court (Rs.) Loss of income due to disability 91,800/- 1,32,600/- Medical expenses 33,500/- 33,500/- Pain and suffering 30,000/- 50,000/- Loss of income during treatment 13,500/- 19,500/- Attendant charges, conveyance and nutrition and nourishment 14,200/- 44,200/- Loss of comfort and amenities 10,000/- 30,000/ Future medical expenses 20,000/- 30,000/- Total 2,13,000/- 3,39,800/- The Apex Court in the case of MUKUND DEWANGAN vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, (2017) 14 SCC 663 , has held that licence to drive LMV includes licence to drive transport vehicle. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of MUKUND DEWANGAN (supra), licence to drive light motor vehicle includes licence to drive transport vehicle, and therefore, the insurer is liable to pay compensation to the claimant. The claimant is entitled to a total compensation to the tune of 3,39,800/-. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of MUKUND DEWANGAN (supra), licence to drive light motor vehicle includes licence to drive transport vehicle, and therefore, the insurer is liable to pay compensation to the claimant. The claimant is entitled to a total compensation to the tune of 3,39,800/-. Needless to state that the aforesaid amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till payment is made. To the aforesaid extent, the judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified. The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the insurance company in MFA No.7168/2014 is dismissed and the appeal filed by the claimant in MFA No.131/2015 is allowed in part.