JUDGMENT: 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 18.08.2011 in MVOP No.426 of 2010 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge (FTC), Tanuku (for short 'the Tribunal'), the claimant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of the compensation. 2. The parties will be referred to as arrayed in the MVOP for convenience. 3. The claimant had applied to Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, read with Rule 455 of the Motor Vehicle Rules, read with amended Act No.54 of 1994, claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the injuries and disability sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 06.01.2010. 4. The claimant is a resident of Venkatarajapuram, H/o.Tallapalem of Ganapavaram Mandal, working as a mason and getting an amount of Rs.4,500/- per month, is about 22 years old. On 06.01.2010, when he went to Pippara Village for construction work, at 10 a.m., he went to have breakfast and walked on the road. By that time, the first respondent had driven the tractor bearing No. AP 7 G 1810 attached with a trailer bearing No.AP 37 B 5152, in a rash and negligent manner, proceeding from Attili side towards Pippara, dashed the claimant in the opposite direction on the wrong route, resulting in the claimant falling, and the front wheel of the tractor ran over his right leg below the knee, causing grievous injuries. The tractor and trailer will be referred to as "the offending vehicle". The petitioner was shifted to Vamsi Hi-Tech Hospital, and on receipt of the petitioner’s statement and based on MLC’s intimation, the police registered a case in Crime Number 4 of 2010 at Tanuku Police Station. The injured was treated as an inpatient in a hospital from 06.01.2010 to 22.01.2010. He underwent surgery for his mandible fracture and hard palate injury to his right leg, spending Rs.50,000/-towards surgical expenses; afterwards, he got treatment as an outpatient. He has lost his income for all these days as he lay in bed from the date of the accident. The leg was tripled, and he became unfit to render any labour work due to his permanent disability. 5. Respondents 1 and 2 remained ex-parte. 6. The third respondent filed its counter by denying all the averments contending that the first respondent was not authorized to drive the tractor and trailer (transport). The leg was tripled, and he became unfit to render any labour work due to his permanent disability. 5. Respondents 1 and 2 remained ex-parte. 6. The third respondent filed its counter by denying all the averments contending that the first respondent was not authorized to drive the tractor and trailer (transport). It was involved in the accident, and it is a commercial transport commercial vehicle, which amounts to a violation of the terms and conditions. The petitioner has to prove the tractor and trailer had a proper route permit, fitness certificate, and registration certificate at the time of the accident. The petitioner has to prove that the tractor and trailer were validly insured at the time of the accident. The petitioner has to prove that he is a Mason and the manner of the accident. 7. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal has formulated appropriate issues. On behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 and 2 got examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.9. On behalf of the third respondent, R.W.1 got examined, and Exs.X1 and X2 were marked. 8. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle's driver. The Tribunal granted a compensation amount of Rs.2,40,000/- with proportionate interest and costs @ 9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization against respondents 1 and 2. The petition is dismissed against the 3rd respondent. 9. Heard both the learned counsel. Perused the record. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the Tribunal failed to award a proper compensation amount. Exonerating the liability of the third respondent is contrary to law and evidence. The evidence is not sufficient to prove that the driver had no valid driving license. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the Tribunal’s findings and observations. 12. Now the points for determination are, I. Whether the Tribunal erred in not fastening the liability on the 3rd respondent Insurance Company? II. Whether the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and requires enhancement? 13. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle’s driver, i.e., the first respondent, is not disputed by the respondents in OP by filing a cross objection or appeal. The said finding attained finality. 13. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle’s driver, i.e., the first respondent, is not disputed by the respondents in OP by filing a cross objection or appeal. The said finding attained finality. The finding of the Tribunal that the petitioner sustained injuries and permanent disability is also not disputed by the respondents in OP by filing a cross objection or appeal. The said finding also attained finality. The petitioner’s case that the third respondent issued an insurance policy is not disputed. POINT No. I a. The evidence of RW. 2-T.L.N. Narasimha Rao (Senior Assistant in RTA) shows that he furnished Ex.X2 driving license particulars issued by the Transport Authority. The Tribunal observed that the first respondent was authorized to drive a tractor and trailer (transport). Subsequently, it was renewed on 09.09.2010, and by 06.01.2010, the 1st respondent had no valid driving license to drive a transport vehicle. As of 14.06.2010, he is eligible to drive a tractor and trailer and LMV. Admittedly, the accident occurred on 06.01.2010. In the cross-examination, RW.2 deposed that the driving licence was issued to the 1st respondent/driver for the first time on 31.07.1 982. After one year, he will be permitted to drive the transport vehicles, a badge will be issued, and the license will be renewed every three years. There is no disqualification at any time. In the chief examination, RW.2 stated that Ex.X2 license is valid for driving LMV, tractor and trailer, and HGV is permitted to drive all transport vehicles under the above license valid upto 08.09.2013 issued in the year 31.07.1982. I have perused the Ex.X2 driving license. It clearly shows that the first respondent/driver obtained the renewal of his driving licence with number DLRAP137148361982 on 10.11.2008 from 10.11.2008 to 14.06.2010 under the category of non-transport. The said licence got renewed for the transport category from 10.11.2008 to 15.10.2009, which shows that he did not have a transport licence on the accident date, i.e., 06.01.2010. But he had a driving licence for the non-transport category on the date of the accident. Though the first respondent had a driving licence for the non-transport category as of the date of the accident, the Tribunal dismissed the petition as if he had no driving licence. But he had a driving licence for the non-transport category on the date of the accident. Though the first respondent had a driving licence for the non-transport category as of the date of the accident, the Tribunal dismissed the petition as if he had no driving licence. It is not a case of the driver not having a licence at the time of the accident. Based on this fact, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant tried to convince the Court that the Tribunal ought not to have exonerated the insurance company from the liability to pay compensation. b. An identical question came to be considered by the Apex Court in Santalal Vs. Rajesh and others, 2017 AIR (civil 734), in which it held as follows: “the Apex Court has considered whether the holder of a licence for a light motor vehicle can drive a tractor attached to the trolley carrying goods and whether a separate endorsement is required authorizing him to drive such a transport vehicle. We have answered the question that a driver with a licence to drive a light motor vehicle can drive such a transport vehicle of LMV class, and there is no necessity to obtain a separate endorsement since the tractor attached to the trolley was a transport vehicle of the category of a light motor vehicle. Hence, there was no breach of the conditions of the policy. Accordingly, given the answer given to reference by the three-Judge Bench of this Court in Mukund Dewangan vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. etc. (Civil Appeal No.5826 of 2011), these appeals have to be here allowed. The right given to the insurer to recover the amount from the owner is hereby set aside. The liability is held to be joint and several of owner, driver and insurer.” c. By following the principles in the said decision, this Court views that the Tribunal should not exonerate the Insurance Company from paying the compensation amount. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant are valid and tenable. Accordingly the point is answered. POINT No.II : a. As already observed, the Tribunal awarded Rs.2,40,000/-compensation with proportionate costs and the subsequent interest. Respondents 1 and 2 have not preferred an appeal against the said finding of the Tribunal. The third respondent/ insurance company has also not filed a cross-appeal disputing the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly the point is answered. POINT No.II : a. As already observed, the Tribunal awarded Rs.2,40,000/-compensation with proportionate costs and the subsequent interest. Respondents 1 and 2 have not preferred an appeal against the said finding of the Tribunal. The third respondent/ insurance company has also not filed a cross-appeal disputing the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal accepted the claimant’s claim that he sustained disability in the accident. The Tribunal has granted compensation under the head of disability, Rs.1,62,000/-. The appellant/claimant questions the said finding. The Tribunal has taken the monthly earnings of the petitioner at Rs.3,000/-per month. The said finding can be accepted. b. In Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and another, 2011 ACJ 1 the Apex Court observed that the courts, which are enjoined with the duty of arriving at just compensation, will have to decide the same following well-accepted principles of determination of compensation. A reading of said judgment shows that the doctor who treated the injured or who examined him subsequently to his permanent disability can give evidence only concerning the extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with the entire evidence. It is also a settled principle that the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act make it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to his or her position prior to the accident. c. After considering the medical evidence, the Tribunal assessed the functional disability at 25%. After considering the nature of the injuries and disability sustained by the petitioner, this Court believes that the Tribunal has correctly assessed the functional disability at 25%. The said finding of the Tribunal is not questioned by the respondent/insurance company by filing a cross-appeal. In Gopalappa Vs. Kanduluru Sankara Reddy and another, 2022 ACJ 1427 the High Court of Karnataka in a case relating to the disability observed as follows: “in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Pappu Deo Yadav vs Naresh Kumar, 2020 ACJ 2695 (SC), the claimant is entitled to an addition of 40 percent of the assessed income towards future prospects". d. By taking the evidence adduced into consideration, the Tribunal fixed the age of the petitioner at 29 years. d. By taking the evidence adduced into consideration, the Tribunal fixed the age of the petitioner at 29 years. As per the observation made in Sarala Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298 the appropriate multiplier is 17' for the age group of 26 to 30. By following the observations made in the above-referred decision, this Court assessed the annual earnings, including future prospects, of the injured, would be at Rs.50,400/-(Rs.36,000 + 14,400) and thereby computed the disability at Rs. 2,14,200/-(50,400/-X 17 X 25%). In addition to the compensation, an amount of Rs.1,62,000/-awarded by the Tribunal, this Court is inclined to award the balance of the amount, i.e. Rs.52,200/-, which is computed above under the head disability. e. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards attendant charges. Considering the nature of injuries, disability sustained by the claimant and the treatment undergone by him, this Court is inclined to award an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards attendant charges. f. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards transportation charges. The evidence on record shows that the claimant got treatment in different hospitals, and he was forced to visit the hospital frequently for treatment; as such, this Court is inclined to award an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards transportation charges. g. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards extra nourishment. After considering the material on record, this Court inclined to award an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment. h. In all, this Court is inclined to enhance the compensation under various heads in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, as detailed hereunder: S.No. Head of the claim Enhanced Compensation 1. Attendant charges 10,000/- 2. Transportation expenses 10,000/- 3. Extra nourishment 10,000/- 4. Disability 52,200/- Total 82,200/- i. After considering the material on record, this Court is inclined to award a sum of Rs.82,200/- in addition to the award passed by the Tribunal. In all, the claimant is entitled to an amount of Rs.3,22,200/-(Rs.2,40,000 + 82,200). Accordingly, the point is answered. 14. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part, enhancing the compensation from Rs.2,40,000/-to Rs.3,22,200/- (Three lakhs twenty-two thousand two hundred only) with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition. Respondents 1 to 3 are directed to deposit the compensation within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 14. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part, enhancing the compensation from Rs.2,40,000/-to Rs.3,22,200/- (Three lakhs twenty-two thousand two hundred only) with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition. Respondents 1 to 3 are directed to deposit the compensation within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the compensation amount by filing an appropriate application before the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. 15. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.