JUDGMENT : 1. These appeals arise out of the impugned judgment and award dated 02.11.2015 whereby the Tribunal allowed the respective claim petitions filed by the claimants thereby awarding compensation in a sum of Rs.12,27,200/-in favour of the claimants towards death of one Rudramuniswamy who died in a fatal road traffic accident that occurred on 30th August 2013. 2. It is not in dispute that MVC No.740/2013 was filed by the first wife and son of late Rudramuniswamy. Similarly, MVC No.766/2013 was filed by the second wife and children of late Rudramuniswamy. Both the claim petitions were taken up together by the Tribunal and disposed of by its common judgment and award. 3. The Insurance Company took up the specific contention that it was not liable to pay compensation in favour of the claimants on the ground that the driver of the vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle at the time of the accident. In this context, it was contended on behalf of the Insurance Company that the Driving Licence at Ex.R4 authorised the driver to drive TRV (Rigid Chassis) along with LMV (NT Car) and TRV-PSV-Bus which did not authorize the driver to drive the offending vehicle which was a heavy goods vehicle. 4. After trial, the Tribunal formulated the following points for consideration: “ISSUES IN MVC. 740/2013 1. Whether the petitioners prove that, Rudramuniswamy @ Rudraiah S/o Eshwarappa has died due to the accidental injuries, in the RTA occurred on 30.08.2013 at about 1000 a.m. NH4 service road, near Kailasappa’s land Kyadigere Village, Chitradurga tq., due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing Reg.No.KA01D9268 by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so at how much and from whom? 3. What order/ award? ISSUES IN MVC. 766/2013 1. Whether the petitioners prove that, he sustained injuries in the RTA occurred on 30.08.2013 at about 1000 a.m near Kailasappa’s land on NH4 service road, Kyadigere village, due to rash and negligent manner of driving of the lorry bearing Reg.No.KA01D9268 by its driver? RECASTED ISSUE NO.1 FRAMED ON 02.11.2015 1. 3. What order/ award? ISSUES IN MVC. 766/2013 1. Whether the petitioners prove that, he sustained injuries in the RTA occurred on 30.08.2013 at about 1000 a.m near Kailasappa’s land on NH4 service road, Kyadigere village, due to rash and negligent manner of driving of the lorry bearing Reg.No.KA01D9268 by its driver? RECASTED ISSUE NO.1 FRAMED ON 02.11.2015 1. Whether the petitioners prove that, Rudramuniswamy @ Rudraiah S/o Eshwarappa has died due to the accidental injuries, in the RTA occurred on 30.08.2013 at about 1000 a.m, NH4 service road, Kyadigere village, due to rash and negligent manner of driving of the lorry bearing Reg.No.KA01D9268 by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so at how much and from whom? 3. What order/ award?.” 5. While dealing with Issue No.1 with regard to the liability of the Insurance Company, the Tribunal held as under: “13. Ex.R4 would disclose that lorry driver had driving TRV Rigid Chasi along with LMVNTCAR and TRVPSVBUS. Further Respondent@ though disputed the driving license of driver of offending vehicle has not examined the RTO concerned to substantiate its contention as it is observed by the Hon’ble High Court in 1997 ACJ 558 Pratap Singh and another Vs. Sharmila and others that Insurance company did not summon any official from licensing authority and mere marking of an exhibit does not dispense with the proof of the document. In the back ground the decision relied upon by the Petitioners in 1997 ACJ 558 is aptly applicable to the case on hand wherein it is further observed and held that, non mentioning the category of ‘transport vehicle’ in the driving licence cannot lead to a conclusion that on the date of accident, the driver was not holding a valid driving license. Hence the objection of Respondent2 counsel and his argument holds no water at all. But with due respect to the decisions he relied upon they are not made applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. It is in this background this Tribunal answers Issue No.1 in the Affirmative.” 6. Upon reappreciation of the material on record, I am of the opinion that by the said finding recorded by the Tribunal in Paragraph 13 of the impugned judgment and award, fastening the liability upon the Insurance Company cannot be termed as erroneous or incorrect so as to warrant interference by this Court. Upon reappreciation of the material on record, I am of the opinion that by the said finding recorded by the Tribunal in Paragraph 13 of the impugned judgment and award, fastening the liability upon the Insurance Company cannot be termed as erroneous or incorrect so as to warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the said contention urged on behalf of the Insurance Company is hereby rejected. 7. In so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the claimants, keeping in mind the Lok Adalath guidelines and the law laid down by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others (2017) 16 SCC 680 ), the compensation payable in favour of the claimants is as under: Rs.11,200/-x 12 x 15 x 4/5 = Rs.16,12,800/- 8. The claimants are also entitled to a sum of Rs.70,000/-towards conventional heads. Thus, the claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.16,82,800/-. After deducting a sum of Rs.12,27,200-awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants are entitled to additional enhanced compensation of Rs.4,55,600/-along with interest at 6% p.a. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I pass the following order:- (i) MFA No.156/2017 and MFA No.5617/2016 are partly allowed. (ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 02.11.2015 passed in MVC Nos.740/2013 and 766/2013 by the I Senior Civil Judge and IV MACT at Chitradurga, is hereby modified. (iii) The claimants in MFA No.156/2017 and MFA No.5617/2016 are entitled to additional enhanced compensation of Rs.4,55,600/-which shall carry interest at 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realization. (iv) However, the claimants in both the claim petitions are at liberty to seek appropriate directions before the Tribunal for apportionment of the entire compensation amount including the additional enhanced compensation. (v) MFA Nos.7705/2016 and 7706/2016 filed by the Insurance Company are hereby dismissed. The amount in deposit is directed to be transferred to the Tribunal for disbursement.