JUDGMENT : SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J. These appeals arose from the impugned award dated 15.01.2015 in OP(MV) No.617 of 2013 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala. MACA No.1090 of 2015 has been filed by the claimant, dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the tribunal. MACA No.2791 of 2015 has been filed by the owner of the offending vehicle, challenging the right of recovery granted to the insurer against him. 2. Since the parties and the cause of action are the same, the appeals are heard together and being disposed of by this judgment. For brevity, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the tribunal. 3. The case of the claimant is that on 28.03.2009, while he was riding a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-17-F-1956 from Peruvazhiyambalam to Tirur, a pick-up van bearing Reg.No.KL-10-V- 2262 driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle, whereby he sustained serious injuries. He approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ?3,00,000/-. 4. Respondents 1 and 2/driver and owner of the offending vehicle respectively filed a written statement, denying negligence. The third respondent insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy coverage for the offending vehicle, but disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. It was also contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid licence to drive medium goods vehicles. Exts.A1 to A10, C1 and B1 to B4 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, held that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and awarded a sum of ?1,47,280/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization, against the third respondent being the insurer. However, the respondent insurer was granted a right of recovery against the second respondent/owner of the offending vehicle, for violation of provisions of law on the ground that the first respondent/driver of the offending vehicle had no licence to drive the offending vehicle, which was a medium goods vehicle. The claimant has come up in appeal dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded and the second respondent/owner of the offending vehicle has come up challenging the right of recovery granted to the insurer. 5. The claimant has come up in appeal dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded and the second respondent/owner of the offending vehicle has come up challenging the right of recovery granted to the insurer. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the claimant, learned counsel for the second respondent and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurer. 6. The learned counsel for the second respondent/owner of the offending vehicle, assailed the impugned award, stating that the tribunal went wrong in holding that the first respondent/driver was not having a valid licence to drive the offending vehicle and in granting a right of recovery to the insurer. According to the learned counsel, though the offending vehicle is a medium goods vehicle, the driving licence that the driver possessed to drive a transport vehicle of such type as on the date of the accident, was enough and valid to drive the medium goods vehicle. 7. The learned counsel for the second respondent/owner argued that since the unladen weight of the vehicle is less than 7500 kg, the first respondent, who was the driver of the offending vehicle, was licensed to drive the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. Relying on the judgment of the apex court in Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. [ 2017 (4) KHC 648 (SC) ], the learned counsel submitted that a driver, who is having a licence to drive ‘light motor vehicle’ and is driving ‘transport vehicle’ of that class, is not required additionally to obtain an endorsement to drive a transport vehicle. The learned Standing Counsel for the insurer, on the other hand, submitted that the offending vehicle was a ‘medium goods vehicle’ and it cannot be considered as a ‘light motor vehicle’ in order to claim the benefit of the judgment in Mukund Dewangan (supra). 8. I have considered the rival contentions raised on both sides. A perusal of Ext.B3 details of registration of the offending vehicle shows that the vehicle owned by the appellant is classified as Medium Goods Vehicle-Tipper, not a light motor vehicle, however, the unladen weight of the offending vehicle is 3155 kg. A light motor vehicle is also a transport vehicle if the gross vehicle weight or unladen weight does not exceed 7500 kg. In the present case, the unladen weight of the vehicle involved is less than 7500 kg. A light motor vehicle is also a transport vehicle if the gross vehicle weight or unladen weight does not exceed 7500 kg. In the present case, the unladen weight of the vehicle involved is less than 7500 kg. In this context, it is appropriate to consider ‘light motor vehicle’ and ‘medium goods vehicle’ as defined in the Kerala Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “the Act”). Section 2(21) of the Act reads as follows: “(21) “light motor vehicle” means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road-roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed 7500 kilograms;” Section 2(23) of the Act reads as follows: “(23) “medium goods vehicle” means any goods carriage other than a light motor vehicle or a heavy goods vehicle;” 9. Admittedly, the driver of the offending vehicle was having a valid licence only to drive light motor vehicles, not medium goods vehicles. Ext.B3 registration details reveal that the offending vehicle is a Medium Goods Vehicle-Tipper. Hence, it does not come under the category of ‘light motor vehicle’ as defined in the Act though the unladen weight was less than 7500 kg. Since the vehicle involved in the accident was a medium goods vehicle and the driver was having licence only to drive a light motor vehicle, I hold that the tribunal was right in finding that the driver was not having a valid licence to drive the offending vehicle at the time of the accident and in granting a right of recovery to the insurer, against the owner of the offending vehicle. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the second respondent/owner of the offending vehicle fails. 10. The learned counsel for the claimant claimed enhancement of compensation under the following heads: 10.1 Notional income - The learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the claimant was a Sales Representative and was earning ?6,000/- per month, however, the tribunal has fixed the monthly income notionally at ?4,000/-, which is on the lower side. Even going by the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [ (2011) 13 SCC 236 ], the monthly income of the claimant ought to have been fixed at ?7,000/- for an accident occured in the year 2009. Even going by the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [ (2011) 13 SCC 236 ], the monthly income of the claimant ought to have been fixed at ?7,000/- for an accident occured in the year 2009. Accordingly, in order to award a just and reasonable compensation, following the judgment in Ramachandrappa (supra), I deem it appropriate to refix the monthly income of the claimant at ?7,000/-. 10.2. Loss of earnings - Since the monthly income of the claimant is refixed at ?7,000/-, compensation towards loss of earnings for a period of eight months has to be recalculated, which would come to ?56,000/-. Thus, the claimant will be entitled to get an additional compensation of ?32,000/- towards loss of earnings. 10.3. Pain and suffering - The learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the tribunal awarded only ?25,000/- towards pain and suffering, which is on the lower side. Considering the injuries sustained by him and the sufferings that he had undergone, I am inclined to grant an amount of ?30,000/- to the claimant as total compensation towards pain and suffering. Thus, the claimant will be entitled to get an additional amount of ?5,000/- as compensation towards pain and suffering. 10.4. Loss of amenities - The learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the tribunal has not awarded compensation towards loss of amenities. Considering the injuries sustained by the claimant, I deem it appropriate to award a compensation of ?25,000/- towards loss of amenities. 10.5. Permanent disability - Since the monthly income of the claimant is refixed at ?7,000/-, compensation towards permanent disability has to be recalculated. Accordingly, following the judgments in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [ 2017(4) KLT 662 (SC)] and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [ 2010(2) KLT 802 (SC) ], the claimant will be entitled to get a total compensation of ?1,14,240/- (7000 x 12 x 17 x 8%) towards permanent disability. It is seen that the tribunal awarded ?65,280/- and ?25,000/- under the heads, permanent disability and loss of earning power. Thus, after deducting the said amounts, there will be an additional amount of ?23,960/- under this head. 11. It is seen that the tribunal awarded ?65,280/- and ?25,000/- under the heads, permanent disability and loss of earning power. Thus, after deducting the said amounts, there will be an additional amount of ?23,960/- under this head. 11. Though the claimant claimed enhancement of compensation under other heads as well, on a perusal of the records available and the impugned award, I am not inclined to interfere with the same since it appears to be just and reasonable. 12. Since the appeal filed by the claimant is of the year 2015, I fix the interest on the enhanced compensation @ 8% per annum from the date of the claim petition till realization. Thus, the impugned award of the tribunal is modified as follows: Sl. No. Head of Claim Amount claimed (in )? Amount awarded by the tribunal (in )? Modified in appeal (in )? Total compensation (in )? 1. Loss of earnings 24000 24000 32000 56000 2. Medical & miscellaneous expenses 28000 - - - 3. Bystander expenses 2000 2000 - 2000 4. Transportation expenses 3000 3000 - 3000 5. Extra nourishment 2000 2000 - 2000 6. Damage to clothing 1000 1000 - 1000 7. Pain and suffering 20000 25000 5000 30000 8. Permanent disability - 65280 23960 114240 9. Loss of earning power 150000 25000 10. Loss of amenities - - 25000 25000 Total 300000 147280 85960 233240 Accordingly, the following orders are issued: a) MACA No. 2791 of 2015 is dismissed. b) MACA No. 1090 of 2015 is allowed in part and the claimant is awarded an additional compensation of ?85,960/- (Rupees eighty five thousand nine hundred and sixty only) over and above the compensation awarded by the tribunal with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization and proportionate costs. c) The insurer shall deposit the said amounts together with interest and costs within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and recover the same from the second respondent/owner of the offending vehicle. d) The claimant shall furnish copies of the PAN Card, AADHAAR Card and bank details before the insurer within a period of one month so as to enable the insurance company to make the deposit as ordered above. d) The claimant shall furnish copies of the PAN Card, AADHAAR Card and bank details before the insurer within a period of one month so as to enable the insurance company to make the deposit as ordered above. In case of failure to furnish details as above, it shall be open for the insurance company to deposit the said amount before the tribunal. Upon such deposit being made, the entire amount shall be disbursed to the claimant at the earliest in accordance with law.