JUDGMENT : These appeals are directed against the judgment and award passed in MVC Nos.157/2010, 195/2010, 182/2010, 185/2010, 39/2011, 184/2010, 183/2010 and 49/2011 dated 18.04.2011 on the file of Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Honnavar. 2. The following appeals are filed by the Insurance Company of the Ambulance bearing registration No.KA-30/6176 challenging the liability of 50% saddled on the Insurance Company of the Ambulance. 3. Appellant-Insurance Company has also insured Mahindra Maxicab bearing registration No.KA-20/4597. 4. Appeal numbers in MFA Nos.21188/2013, 25578/2012 and MFA Crob No.793/2013 are by the claimants who are injured in the said accident seeking for enhancement of the compensation. 5. Facts of the case in brief for disposal of these appeals are as under: 5.1. In a road traffic accident occurred on 29.05.2010 involving Mahindra Maxicab bearing registration No.KA-20/4597 and Ambulance bearing registration No.KA-30/6176 on NH-7 near Jogimatti, some persons were injured. The injured persons have laid the claim in the aforesaid MVC cases. 6. Claim petitions were contested by filing detail written statements including the non holding effective driving license on the part of the driver of the Ambulance. 7. The Tribunal, on contest, allowed the claim petitions in part as under: Sl. No. MVC No. Name of Claimant Amount awarded by Tribunal (in Rs.) 1 157/2010 Tulasi Gouda 2,77,000/- 2 195/2010 Kumari Suprita Achari 68,250/- 3 182/2010 Uday Naik and another 3,90,000/- 4 185/2010 Laxmi Padti 63,700/- 5 39/2011 Ganapu Gouda 49,500/- 6 184/2010 Abubakar Bablu 1,06,000/- 7 183/2010 Isuf Honnikar 11,215/- 8 49/2011 Amrin Shah 78,200/- 8. The compensation amount was directed to be shared the Insurance Company of the Ambulance as well as the Insurance Company of the Mahindra Maxicab which is none other than United India Insurance Company Limited in the ratio of 50:50, though the charge sheet came to be filed against the driver of the Ambulance. 9. The Tribunal assigned proper reasons that though the charge sheet is filed against the driver of the Ambulance, some amount of contributory negligence is also on the part of driver of the Maxicab as a Ambulance is required to move swiftly on the road to save a life and driver of Maxicab should have paved the way for the easy movement of the Ambulance. 10. 10. Smt. Preeti Shashank, learned counsel appearing for Insurance Company of the ambulance however, contended that the driver of the Maxicab did not possess the valid driving license as it got expired on 24.04.2010 and the renewal of the driving licence was taken place on 31.05.2010 and the accident has occurred on 29.05.2010. 11. Therefore, 50% of the liability fastened on to the Insurance Company of the ambulance is to be shifted on the owner of the ambulance bearing No.KA-30/6176 and sought for allowing the appeal. 12. Sri. Laxmesh P. Mataguppi, learned counsel and Sri.T.M.Nadaf and Sri.S.L.Matti, learned counsel in the respective appeals of the claimants sought for enhanced compensation by contending that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal having regard to the injuries sustained by the claimants is on the lower side. 13. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 14. On such perusal of the material on record, the accidental injuries sustained by the claimants is established by placing oral and documentary evidence on record. 15. Tribunal has appreciated the nature of the injuries and applied the principles of law that governed the field of awarding suitable and adjudged compensation and allowed the claim petition as referred to supra. 16. However, the Tribunal has taken into consideration the oral evidence placed on record by the driver of the ambulance and also taking note of the fact that the Maxicab driver if slowed down for a while, the accident would not have occurred at all and has attributed 50% of contributory negligence on the driver of the Maxicab even though the charge sheet came to be filed against the driver of the ambulance. 17. It is common knowledge that the ambulance is required to move swiftly on the road in order to save a life. Therefore, the drivers of the other vehicles on the road is expected to pave the way for the easy movement of the ambulances, fire engines or police vehicles as the case may be; especially when there is a siren switched on. It is a basic civic sense. If the maxi cab driver had slowed down for a while paving the way for the ambulance, accident would not have occurred at all. 18. Be it what it may. It is a basic civic sense. If the maxi cab driver had slowed down for a while paving the way for the ambulance, accident would not have occurred at all. 18. Be it what it may. Since the accident has occurred, the police after thorough investigation, charge sheeted the driver of the ambulance for having moved on the wrong side. The driver of ambulance having explained in his evidence as to why he had to move on the wrong side of the road, Tribunal was justified in attributing 50% contributory negligence with the driver of the ambulance as well as the driver of the Maxicab. 19. What has been ignored by the Tribunal in the whole process is that as per Ex.R.5, driver of the ambulance did not have effective driving license as on the date of accident inasmuch as his licence got expired on 24.04.2010. The same should have been renewed within a period of 30 days from 24.04.2010. Actual date of renewal as per the Ex.R.5 is 31.05.2010. Therefore, not holding the proper driving license exonerates the liability of the Insurance Company as it is a fundamental breach. 20. At this juncture, learned Advocates for claimants as well as learned counsel for the owner of the ambulance vehemently contended that the statute allows 30 days time to renew the driving license and if an application has been made within 30 days on account of the procedural delay, the driving license can be extended beyond 30 days which would enure to the benefit of the holder of the license as if it has been renewed soon after the expiry. 21. Such an argument is no doubt an acceptable argument. But in the case on hand, the owner or the driver of the ambulance did not place any evidence on record that soon after the expiry of the driving license there was an application filed before the RTO within 30 days and the accident has occurred when the said application was pending for processing at the hands of the RTO. 22. In the absence of such evidence placed on record, there is no other alternative for this Court except to accept the argument put forth on behalf of the Insurance Company of the ambulance that the driver did not possess the effective driving license. 23. 22. In the absence of such evidence placed on record, there is no other alternative for this Court except to accept the argument put forth on behalf of the Insurance Company of the ambulance that the driver did not possess the effective driving license. 23. Accordingly, the saddling of 50% liability on the Insurance Company of the ambulance needs to be set aside and said liability needs to be transferred to the owner of the ambulance. 24. Having said thus, claimants in MFA No.21188/2013, MFA No.25578/2013 and MFA Crob No.793/2013 have made out a case for enhanced compensation having regard to the injuries sustained by them. 25. Taking note of the fact that the accident is of the year 2010, reassessing the quantum of compensation at this distance of time on each and every head would result in futile exercise. Moreover, the Tribunal has granted sufficient compensation based on the principles of law that governed the field of awarding the suitable compensation. 26. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, claimant in MFA No.21188/2013, claimant in MFA No.25578/2013 and MFA Crob No.793/2013 are awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/-75,000/-50,000/-respectively, over and above the compensation amount already awarded by the Tribunal globally, would meet the ends of justice. 27. Accordingly, following: ORDER i. Appeals filed by the Insurance Company of the Ambulance in MFA No.23827/2012, MFA No.23828/2012, MFA No.23826/2012, MFA No.23829/2012, MFA No.23830/2012, MFA No.23831/2012, MFA No.23832/2012, MFA No.23833/2012, are allowed. ii. 50% of the liability saddled on the Insurance Company of the ambulance is hereby set aside. iii. The claimants are entitled to receive the same from the owner of the ambulance bearing No.KA-20/4597. iv. MFA No.21188/2013, MFA No.25578/2012 and MFA Crob. No.793/2013 are allowed in part and they are entitled to a sum of Rs.30,000/-Rs.75,000/-and 50,000/-over and above the compensation in a sum of Rs.63,700/-, Rs.78,200/-, Rs.1,06,000/-awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation. v. It is made clear that even in the enhanced compensation, the Insurance Company of the ambulance is not liable to pay 50% of the enhanced compensation and it is recoverable from the owner of the ambulance. vi. Amount in deposit is ordered to return to the Appellant/Insurance Company of the Ambulance.