JUDGMENT : Devashis Baruah, J. 1. Heard Ms. Moajungla, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Limawapang, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1. Mr. Meyiwabang Ao, learned counsel appears for respondent No. 2. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the impugned judgment and award dated 04.05.2020, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dimapur, Nagaland in MAC Case No. 151/2016, whereby an amount of Rs.12,79,600/- was adjudged as the just and fair compensation in terms of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (herein after, in short "the Act"). 2. The grounds of objection in the instant appeal are two-fold: First that the driver in question did not have a valid Driving License to drive the HMV transport vehicle and as such, the insurance company, i.e. the appellant is not liable to be saddled with the liability as has been done by the impugned award. The second ground of objection is the compensation so awarded cannot be a just and fair compensation within the meaning of Section 168 of the Act as the award passed is inflated and exorbitant. 3. The facts of the instant case is that on 01.02.2016, at 5:00 P.M. the son of the claimant, one Kerito (since deceased) was travelling by a vehicle bearing Registration No. NL-03/A-2322 (Mini Truck) employed as a handyman of the said truck. The said truck met with an accident due to loss of control of the vehicle and resultantly, the son of the claimant received grievous injuries and subsequently, succumbed to his injuries in the hospital. It is the case of the claimant in the claim petition that the deceased was earning an amount of Rs.6,000/- per month and he was the only earning member in the family and at the time of his accident, he was only 18 years old and on the basis thereof, claimed a compensation of Rs.8,08,000/-. 4. The owner of the vehicle, who is the respondent No. 2 herein filed his written statement stating that the vehicle met with the accident on 01.02.2016 and the said vehicle was driven by the opposite party No. 2, who is the respondent No. 3 herein. It has been specifically mentioned that the vehicle in question was duly insured with the appellant insurance company vide policy No. 200208/31/14/6300002188 having its validity from 06.02.2015 to 05.02.2016. It has been specifically mentioned that the vehicle in question was duly insured with the appellant insurance company vide policy No. 200208/31/14/6300002188 having its validity from 06.02.2015 to 05.02.2016. It was also mentioned that the vehicle in question was driven by the respondent No. 3 herein, who had a valid driving license. 5. The Appellant insurance company had also filed its written statement, whereby the death of the deceased was disputed. Though it was admitted that the vehicle in question was insured with the appellant insurance company at that relevant point of time, but it was stated that the liability of the appellant company is specifically confined under the terms and conditions of the insurance. It was also mentioned that there is a doubt as regards to whether the deceased died out of the said accident caused by the said Mini truck or was it in a car accident. At this point of time, it is relevant to mention that to the said written statement the insurance policy of the company was enclosed, wherein the gross vehicle weight of the said vehicle in question was shown as 5,700 kilos and the unladen weight as 2,700 kilos. 6. On the basis of the pleadings, as many as five issues were framed by the Tribunal below and the same, for the sake of convenience are quoted herein below:- "1. Whether the deceased Kerito died in vehicular accident on 01.02.2016 involving vehicle bearing Regd. No. NL-03/A-2322(Mini Truck)? 2. Whether the deceased was the handyman of the vehicle involved in the accident alleged to have taken place on 01.02.2016? If so, whether the liability of the insurer of the vehicle is subjected to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy? 3. Whether the vehicle was having all requisite vehicular documents and was driven by the driver possessing valid and effective driving license at the relevant time? 4. Whether the deceased at the time of accident was 18 years old and earning Rs.6,000/- per month as handyman of vehicle bearing Regd. No. NL-03/A-2322(Mini Truck)? 5. Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation, if so, to what extent and payable to whom?" The record reveals that the claimant adduced himself as the only witness and exhibited various documents. However, neither the appellant nor the owner of the vehicle or the driver adduced any evidence. 7. No. NL-03/A-2322(Mini Truck)? 5. Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation, if so, to what extent and payable to whom?" The record reveals that the claimant adduced himself as the only witness and exhibited various documents. However, neither the appellant nor the owner of the vehicle or the driver adduced any evidence. 7. The Tribunal, vide judgment and award dated 04.05.2020 decided the issue No. 1 in favour of the claimant holding inter alia that the deceased Kerito died in the vehicle accident on 01.02.2016 involving the vehicle bearing registration No. NL-03/A-2322(Mini Truck). As regards the issue No. 2, as to whether the deceased was the handyman of the said vehicle when the accident took place and as to whether the liability of the insurer of the vehicle is subjected to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the same was held in favour of the claimant holding inter alia that the deceased was the handyman in question involved in the accident which took place on 01.02.2016 and the vehicle was duly insured with the Appellant Insurance Company and was driven by an authorized driver having a valid Driving License. As regards the issue No. 3, as to whether the vehicle was having requisite documents and was driven by the driver possessing valid and effective driving license at the relevant time, the learned Tribunal held that the said vehicle had all the requisite vehicle documents and was driven by the driver having valid documents at the relevant point of time. As regards issue No. 4, as to whether the deceased at the time of the accident was 18 years old and was earning Rs.6,000/- per month as handyman, the learned Tribunal held that the deceased was 18 years old but came to a finding that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.5,000/- per month. On the basis of the same, the learned Tribunal, while deciding the issue No. 5, which pertained to the entitlement of the claimant to compensation, adjudged that the just and fair compensation would be Rs.12,79,600/- and the same would carry an interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till full satisfaction of the claim award. It is against the said judgment and award that the Appellant has approached this Court by filing the instant appeal primarily on the ground as already mentioned herein above. 8. It is against the said judgment and award that the Appellant has approached this Court by filing the instant appeal primarily on the ground as already mentioned herein above. 8. Let this Court first take into consideration the first ground as to whether the driver had a valid license to drive the vehicle in question. The license, as available on record, would show that the respondent No. 3, who was the driver of the vehicle in question was issued a license bearing Driving License No. 0320060000436 and he was authorized to drive LMV-NT and Motor Cycle. The registration certificate of the vehicle in question i.e. NL-03/A-2322, as available on record, shows that the gross vehicle weight is 5,700 kilos and unladen weight is 2,700 kilos. The learned counsel for the appellant had submitted that as the driver's license was only for LMV-NT and not for HMV, i.e. Heavy Motor Vehicle, the driver in question did not have a valid license and as such, the insurance company is not liable. However, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimant has drawn the attention of this Court to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, reported in (2017) 14 SCC 663 , wherein at paragraph 60 and its sub-paragraphs have been duly explained what would constitute a LMV and HMV and the same being relevant are quoted herein below:- "60. Thus, we answer the questions which are referred to us thus: 60.1. "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 Sections 2(15) and 2(48). Such transport vehicles are not excluded from the definition of the light motor vehicle by virtue of Amendment act 54 of 1994. 60.2. "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 Sections 2(15) and 2(48). Such transport vehicles are not excluded from the definition of the light motor vehicle by virtue of Amendment act 54 of 1994. 60.2. 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 is issued under Section 10(2)(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54 of 1994 and 28-3-2001 in the form. 60.3 The effect of the amendment made by virtue of Act 54 of 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 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. 60.4. 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." 9. From a perusal of the paragraphs 60.2, it would reveal that the transport vehicle and an omnibus, of which the gross weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 kilos would be a Light Motor Vehicle as also a motorcar or tractor or a road roller whose unladen weight does not exceed 7500 kilos. It was also observed that a holder of a driving license to drive class of "Light Motor Vehicle" as provided in Section 10(2)(d) is competent to drive the transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kilos or a road roller, the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7500 kilos. In the instant case, it would be seen from the certificate of registration, the gross vehicle weight of the ill fated vehicle in question was 5700 kilos. This would also be seen from a perusal of the insurance policy enclosed as Annexure-1 to the written statement filed by the Appellant Insurance Company. Consequently, taking into consideration the driving license, the certificate of Registration and Insurance Policy the ill fated vehicle, this Court is of the opinion that the driver in question was competent to drive the vehicle in question. 10. The next question which arises is as regards the quantum of compensation. Section 168 of the Act stipulates that the claimant(s) are entitled to a just and fair compensation, which means that the said compensation should not be excessive as well as less than what the claimant is entitled to as per law. Though the exact compensation cannot be arrived but the same has to be done taking into consideration the various judicial pronouncements by the Supreme Court from time to time. In the instant case, the monthly income of the deceased had been fixed at Rs.5,000/- per month. Taking into consideration that the deceased at the time of his death was 18 years old and applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and more particularly paragraph 42 of the said judgment, it would appear that the operative multiplier would be 18. 11. The next question which needs also to be taken into consideration as to how much deduction is required to be made from the total income as arrived with on account of personal expenses and living expenses. 11. The next question which needs also to be taken into consideration as to how much deduction is required to be made from the total income as arrived with on account of personal expenses and living expenses. Taking into consideration that the deceased left behind his father, mother and four other brothers and sisters and applying the ratio as mentioned in paragraph 32 of the said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (supra), 1/3rd is required to be deducted from the amount on account of personal and living expenses. Further to that, in terms with the judgment of the constitution bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the of case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , more particularly to paragraph 59.8, the claimant is entitled to an amount of Rs.15,000/-, Rs.15,000/- and Rs.40,000/- on account of funeral expenses, loss of estate and loss of consortium and further, it has also been mentioned that every 3 (three) years, the same is to be increased by 10%. In another recent judgment of the Supreme Court, in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and Others, reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 it was held at paragraph 21 and its sub-paragraph, that filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of accidental death of a child and as such, it was held that both the parents would be entitled to equal amount of compensation on the ground of loss of consortium. Apart from the above, it is also relevant to take note of future prospects. In terms with paragraph 59.4 of the judgment in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) the claimant would be entitled to an addition of 40% on the established income. In the light of the above discussions the award stands modified in the following manner:- Sl. No. Head Compensation awarded 1. Income Rs.5,000/- 2. Future prospects (40% of the income) Rs.2,000/- 3. Deduction of personal expenses i.e. 1/3 of Rs.(5,000+2,000/-) Rs.2,333/- 4. Total Income (i.e. 2/3rd of Rs.7,000/-) Rs.4,667/- 5. Multiplier 18 6. Loss of future income Rs.4,667/- x 12 x 18 Rs.10,08,072/- 7. Funeral expenses Rs.16,500/- 8. Loss of estate Rs.16,500/- 9. Loss of filial consortium Rs.88,000/- (Rs.44,000/- each for father and the mother) 10. Total Rs.11,29,072/- 12. Deduction of personal expenses i.e. 1/3 of Rs.(5,000+2,000/-) Rs.2,333/- 4. Total Income (i.e. 2/3rd of Rs.7,000/-) Rs.4,667/- 5. Multiplier 18 6. Loss of future income Rs.4,667/- x 12 x 18 Rs.10,08,072/- 7. Funeral expenses Rs.16,500/- 8. Loss of estate Rs.16,500/- 9. Loss of filial consortium Rs.88,000/- (Rs.44,000/- each for father and the mother) 10. Total Rs.11,29,072/- 12. The above amount shall carry an interest @9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition i.e. from 29.08.2016 till realization. The said amount be deposited before the learned Tribunal after adjustment of the amount already paid within a period of six weeks from today. 13. Send back the LCR. 14. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.