JUDGMENT : V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J. 1. The appellant is the Claimant in M.V.O.P.No. 433 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Kadapa and the respondents are the respondents in the said case. 2. For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim application. 3. The claimant filed a Claim Petition under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondents praying the Tribunal to award an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a Motor Vehicle Accident occurred on 02.02.2008. 4. The brief averments of the petition are as follows: On 02.02.2008 the petitioner along with others boarded an auto bearing No. AP 04W 0183 to go towards Nandimandalam side and when the auto reached Kuntamarri on Vempalli road, the driver of auto drove the same in a rash and negligent manner in order to cross another auto and dashed to a motor cycle and then turned turtle, resulting which, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries and the petitioner claimed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation. 5. The first respondent remained exparte. The second respondent filed counter denying the claim of the claimant and contended that the claimant is not entitled any compensation and the second respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. 6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: (i) Whether the petitioner received injuries in a motor vehicle accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the auto bearing No. AP 04W 0183 on 02.02.2008? (ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? (iii) To what relief? 7. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf of the petitioner, PW1 and PW2 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 were marked. On behalf of respondents RW1 and RW2 were examined and Ex.B1 and Ex.X1 to Ex.X4 were marked. 8. At the culmination of the enquiry, after considering the evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the Tribunal has given a finding that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of offending vehicle and the Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.1,17,082/- to the claimant towards compensation. 9. 8. At the culmination of the enquiry, after considering the evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the Tribunal has given a finding that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of offending vehicle and the Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.1,17,082/- to the claimant towards compensation. 9. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant filed the present appeal claiming the remaining balance of compensation amount. 10. Now, the points for consideration are: 1. Whether the Order of Tribunal needs any interference? 2. Whether the claimant/appellant is entitled for enhancement of compensation as prayed for? 11. POINT Nos. 1 and 2: On considering the Ex.A1 attested copy of First Information Report, Ex.A2 attested copy of charge sheet and Ex.A3 attested copy of wound certificate coupled with the evidence of PW1, the Tribunal came to conclusion that the accident in question was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicle auto bearing No. AP 04W 0183. 12. The case of the petitioner is that on 02.02.2008, the petitioner along with others boarded an auto bearing No. AP 04W 0183 to go towards Nandimandalam side and when the auto reached Kuntamarri on Vempalli road, the driver of auto drove the same in a rash and negligent manner in order to cross another auto and dashed to a motor cycle and then turned turtle, resulting which, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries The oral evidence of PW1 is well supported by Ex.A1 to Ex.A3. The material on record proves that the accident in question was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle auto in which the petitioner sustained fracture injuries to both legs. The Tribunal also came to the same conclusion. I do not find any legal flaw or infirmity in the said finding given by Tribunal. 13. Coming to the compensation granted by the Tribunal, the Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.1,17,082/- towards total compensation to the claimant. The Tribunal also came to the same conclusion. I do not find any legal flaw or infirmity in the said finding given by Tribunal. 13. Coming to the compensation granted by the Tribunal, the Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.1,17,082/- towards total compensation to the claimant. The Tribunal came to conclusion that though the offending vehicle is insured with second respondent Insurance Company and policy is in force, since the driver of the offending vehicle is not having valid and effective driving licence and he possess only Light Motor Vehicle non-transport driving licence and the transport endorsement is not there and due to that the Insurance Company was exonerated for paying compensation to the claimant. 14. In a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental insurance Company Limited, 2017 SAR (Civil) 1008 held that: ‘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 exclude from the definition of the light motor vehicle by virtue of Amended Act No. 54/1994. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India further held that: The effect of the amendment made by virtue of Act.54/1994 w.e.f. 14-11-1994 while substituting classes (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)(h) with expression ‘transport vehicle’ as substituted in section 10(2)(e) related only to the afore said substituted classes only. It does not exclude transport vehicle, from the purview of section 10(20)(e) and section 2(41) of the Act i.e., light motor vehicle. It does not exclude transport vehicle, from the purview of section 10(20)(e) and section 2(41) of the Act i.e., light motor vehicle. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India further held that: 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” continuous to be the same as it was and has 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 or such class without any endorsement to that effect.” Therefore, in view of the above decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the driving licence of driver of 1st respondent is sufficient to drive the crime vehicle/auto. Therefore, objection taken by the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company cannot be accepted. 15. Here with regard to the transport and non-transport driving licence, the Government of India addressed a letter to all the Principal Secretaries and DGP’s of all the State Governments vide letter dated 16.04.2018 vide RT-11021/44/2017-MVL. In the said letter, the Government of India clearly stated that in compliance of the judgment dated 03.07.2017 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 5826 of 2011 in Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited: In view of the legal position as settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above Judgment, the requirement under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to obtain the transport licence would arise in case of medium/heavy goods and passenger vehicles only. No other vehicle will require any separate endorsement, even if they are used for commercial purposes. The exemption from the requirement to obtain the endorsement for commercial vehicles would apply to following vehicles: (i) Motor cycle without gear (ii) Motor cycle with gear (iii) Light Motor Vehicle (goods/passenger) (iv) e-rickshaw/e-cart Therefore, in view of the above reasons, the driver of first respondent is having valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle/auto on the date of accident. Since the offending vehicle is insured with the second respondent/Insurance Company and the policy under Ex.B1 is in force, the second respondent/Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. Since the offending vehicle is insured with the second respondent/Insurance Company and the policy under Ex.B1 is in force, the second respondent/Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. Therefore, the second respondent has to indemnify the first respondent/ owner of the offending vehicle. 16. The quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not at all disputed by the appellant during the course of arguments. The learned counsel for appellant would submit that the legal position with regard to transport endorsement or non-transport endorsement is well settled and transport endorsement is not at all required on the Light Motor Vehicle driving licence to drive the auto. As stated supra, the driver of the offending vehicle is having valid driving licence by the date of accident. 17. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the evidence on record and on considering the evidence of PW2/medical officer, awarded an amount of Rs.64,082/- towards medical bills. Ex.A6-prescriptions and medical bills worth Rs.64,082/- also supports the case of the claimant that he incurred medical expenses of Rs.64,082/-. On considering the documentary evidence coupled with the evidence of PW2, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering for suffering from grievous injuries. On considering Ex.A4 disability certificate coupled with the evidence of PW2, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards disability sustained by the petitioner under the head of general damages. Since the petitioner sustained fracture injuries, an amount of Rs.18,000/- was awarded towards loss of earnings, on considering the evidence of PW2 coupled with Ex.A3 and Ex.A4 and also on considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal rightly awarded an amount of Rs.1,17,082/- towards total compensation to the claimant towards grievous injuries sustained by him in a Motor Vehicle Accident. Therefore, I do not find any legal flaw or infirmity in the said finding given by the Tribunal to award compensation of Rs.1,17,082/- to the claimant towards total compensation. 18. In the result, this appeal is disposed of, modifying the order dated 30.06.2011 passed in M.V.O.P.No. 433 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Kadapa. Consequently, the petitioner is entitled the total compensation of Rs.1,17,082/- with interest @6% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realization from both the respondents. In the result, this appeal is disposed of, modifying the order dated 30.06.2011 passed in M.V.O.P.No. 433 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Kadapa. Consequently, the petitioner is entitled the total compensation of Rs.1,17,082/- with interest @6% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realization from both the respondents. The respondents 1 and 2 are directed to deposit the total compensation of Rs.1,17,082/- along with interest as ordered above, within two months from the date of this judgment. On such deposit, the appellant is entitled to withdraw the same. There shall be no order as to costs. 19. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.