Order : 1. All the appeals arise of the same impugned award dated 09.04.2013 passed the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Balotra. Hence, the same are being decided by this common order. 2. Brief facts leading to the filing of instant appeal are that on27.09.2008, at around 8:00 PM, the claimant - Laxmandas was traveling on a motorcycle bearing registration No.RJ 21-3M-8476 along with Sukhdev, son of Mangilal Sant, from Silor to Sukhdev’s field. When they reached Khetaram Pyau on the Silor-Samdari road, a three Wheeler Taxi (RJ-19-TC-718), driven by Mangilal, came from the Samdari side at high speed and in a negligent manner, driving in the wrong direction, collided with the motorcycle. Sukhdev was riding the motorcycle, and Laxmandas was a pillion rider. Due to the impact, both sustained serious and minor injuries. An FIR was lodged at Samdari Police Station, wherein after investigation a charge sheet was filed against Mangilal in the competent court. The claimants preferred claim petitions before the learned MACT, Balotra. Owner and Driver jointly filed a written reply, while Respondent No. 3 Insurance Company submitted a separate reply, denying the allegations. The insurance company - Respondent No. 3 raised a preliminary objection, stating that at the time of the accident, the driver did not possess a valid and effective driving license. The driver only had a light motor vehicle (LMV) license, which was private and non-commercial, whereas the insurance policy required a commercial license. The insurance company contended that since the policy terms were violated, it was not liable to pay compensation, and thus, the claim petition should be dismissed. 3. Based on the arguments raised by the parties before the learned Tribunal, the learned Tribunal has framed as many as four issues and awarded compensation dated 09.04.2013 in tune of Rs.2,06,134/- & 76,563/- & respectively along with interest @ 6% p.a in Civil Misc. Claim No.15/2009 & 16/2009 and fastened the liability on the Owner and Driver of the Vehicle. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1199/2013 & S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1200/2013:- 1. The present Civil Misc. Appeals have been field by the owner and driver of the Vehicle bearing registration No.RJ-19-TC-718 being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 09.04.2013 passed in Civil Misc. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1199/2013 & S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1200/2013:- 1. The present Civil Misc. Appeals have been field by the owner and driver of the Vehicle bearing registration No.RJ-19-TC-718 being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 09.04.2013 passed in Civil Misc. Claim No.15/2009 & 16/2009, whereby, the liability has been fastened upon the appellants to pay the compensation as awarded to the tune of Rs.2,06,134/- & 76,563/- &respectively along with interest @ 6% p.a. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Tribunal in the impugned award dated 09.04.2013 has held that the appellant/driver was not having valid driving license to drive the Three Wheeler Taxi for the purpose of carrying passengers as the appellant/driver was having the license to drive Light Motor Vehicles. He further submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Rambha Devi & Ors.” Civil Appeal No.841 of 2018 decided on 06.11.2024 has upheld the decision in the case of “Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.” 2017 14 SCC 663 and thus, the requirement of having transport license to drive the three wheeler taxi was not required. Relevant part of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced hereunder:- “…. 131 . Our conclusions following the above discussion are as under:- (I) A driver holding a license for Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) class, under Section 10(2)(d) for vehicles with a gross Page 125 of 126 vehicle weight under 7,500 kg, is permitted to operate a ‘Transport Vehicle’ without needing additional authorization under Section 10(2) (e) of the MV Act specifically for the ‘Transport Vehicle’ class. For licensing purposes, LMVs and Transport Vehicles are not entirely separate classes. An overlap exists between the two. The special eligibility requirements will however continue to apply for, inter alia, e-carts, e-rickshaws, and vehicles carrying hazardous goods. (II) The second part of Section 3(1), which emphasizes the necessity of a specific requirement to drive a ‘Transport Vehicle,’ does not supersede the definition of LMV provided in Section 2(21) of the MV Act. (III) The additional eligibility criteria specified in the MV Act and MV Rules generally for driving ‘transport vehicles’ would apply only to those intending to operate vehicles with gross vehicle weight exceeding 7,500 kg i.e. ‘medium goods vehicle’, ‘medium passenger vehicle’, ‘heavy goods vehicle’ and ‘heavy passenger vehicle’. (III) The additional eligibility criteria specified in the MV Act and MV Rules generally for driving ‘transport vehicles’ would apply only to those intending to operate vehicles with gross vehicle weight exceeding 7,500 kg i.e. ‘medium goods vehicle’, ‘medium passenger vehicle’, ‘heavy goods vehicle’ and ‘heavy passenger vehicle’. (IV) The decision in Mukund Dewangan (2017) is upheld but for reasons as explained by us in this judgment. In the absence of any obtrusive omission, the decision is not per incuriam, even if certain provisions of the MV Act and MV Rules were not considered in the said judgment. …..” 3. Learned counsel for the respondents affirms that in light of the judgment dated 06.11.2024 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rambha Devi (supra) the appellant is not required to have the passenger PSV license to drive the vehicle in question. 4. In view of the submissions made and taking into consideration the judgment dated 06.11.2024 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rambha Devi (supra) wherein the decision in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra) was upheld, the direction given in the impugned award dated 09.04.2013 to the extent of pay and recover is quashed and set aside. All the respondents are held jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation as awarded by the learned Tribunal in the claim petition along with the interest. 5. The instant misc. appeals S.B.CMA Nos.1199/2013 &1200/2013 are allowed accordingly. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that in light of the directions of the Court dated 22.08.2013, the appellants have deposited 50% of the award, which may be refunded back to them. In case, the appellants have deposited the 50% amount, it shall be refunded back to them forthwtih. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1280/2013 & S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1281/2013:- 1. The present Civil Misc. Appeals have been field by the claimants [Laxman Das (aged 20 years) & Sukhdev (aged 17 Years)] being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 09.04.2013 passed in Civil Misc. Claim No.15/2009 & 16/2009, whereby, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.2,06,134/- & 76,563/- respectively along with interest @6% p.a. in favour of Laxman Das (Claimant) and Sukhdev (Claimant)respectively and has also exonerated the Insurance Company. 2. Claim No.15/2009 & 16/2009, whereby, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.2,06,134/- & 76,563/- respectively along with interest @6% p.a. in favour of Laxman Das (Claimant) and Sukhdev (Claimant)respectively and has also exonerated the Insurance Company. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants in both the appeals submits that the learned tribunal has erred in not awarding the compensation towards future prospects, grievous injury suffered by the claimant and hospitalization and also awarded meager amount under the head of pain and suffering. He submits that the learned Tribunal has failed to take into consideration the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Pranay Sethi : [2017 (16) SCC 680], Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation : AIR 2009 SC 3104 ] and Sidram Vs. The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd & Anr: (Civil Appeal No.8510 of 2022 decided on 16.11.2022) 3. Learned counsel for the respondent–Insurance Company submits that the learned Tribunal has rightly passed the order and no enhancement is required. 4. Heard the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. As far as the contention of the appellants/claimants regarding award of future prospect is concerned, this court finds that it is indeed settled position of law that future prospect can be awarded in cases where serious injuries result in permanent disablement, however, for claiming the same it should be shown that the earning capacity of the claimant has been adversely affected. In S.B.CMA No.1280/2013 the appellant/claimant (Laxman Das) has suffered 27% permanent disability and in S.B.CMA No.1281/2013 the appellant/claimant (Sukhdev) has suffered 11% permanent disability, however, the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants has not been able to demonstrate before this court that the earning capacity of the claimants has been adversely affected. Thus, this court, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, finds that the present case does not call for award of future prospect. 6. Furthermore, this court with respect to both the appeals - S.B.CMA No.1280/2013 and S.B.CMA No.1281/2013 finds that the learned tribunal has not awarded any amount towards the grievous injury suffered by the claimants and also for the respective period of Hospitalization undergone by them and awarded meager amount under the heads of simple injury and pain and suffering and the same deserve to be enhanced. Since there is no dispute on the factual matrix of the case, thus, after arriving at the conclusion that the compensation awarded by the learned tribunal in respective claim petitions deserves to be enhanced, this Court directed both the counsel to jointly submit the requisite calculations in the light of the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Pranay Sethi : [ 2017 (16) SCC 680 ], Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation : AIR 2009 SC 3104 ] and Sidram Vs. The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd & Anr: (Civil Appeal No.8510 of 2022 decided on 16.11.2022) . Accordingly, in S.B.CMA No.1280/2013 this court, considering the facts and circumstances, deems it appropriate to award Rs.70,000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs.1600/- per day for the hospitalization period; Rs.3500/- for each simple injury and Rs.15,000/- for each grievous injuries sustained by the Appellant/claimant (Laxman Das). Thus, the amount of compensation awardable to the appellant/claimant (Laxman Das) is as under: In S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1280/2013 arising out of award passed in Civil Misc. Claim No.15/2009: Particulars Amount awarded by the Tribunal Amount awarded and enhanced by this Court Income Rs.3000/- (per month) Rs.3,000/- (per month) (Same as tribunal) Simple injuries (3500x2) [A] 4,000/- 7,000/- Grievous injury (fracture) (15,000 x 3) [B] Nil 45,000/- Hospitalization from 28.09.2008 to 11.10.2008 (1600x14) [C] Nil 22,400/- x (Annual Income) x (Multiplier)] (27%) x (3000x12) x (18)= 1,74,960/- [D] 1,65,240/- 1,74,960/- Medical bills [E] 27,894/- 27,894/- Pain and Suffering [F] 5,000/- 70,000/- TOTAL [A+B+C+D+E+F] Rs.2,06,134/ -[G] Rs.3,47,254/- [H] Enhanced Amount: [H] - [G] Rs.1,41,120/- In S.B.CMA No.1281/2013 this court, in view of facts and circumstances, deems it appropriate to award Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs.1600/- per day for the hospitalization period; Rs.3500/- for each simple injury and Rs.15,000/- for each grievous injuries sustained by the Appellant/ claimant (Sukhdev). Thus, the amount of compensation awardable to the appellant/claimant (Sukhdev) is as under: In S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1281/2013 arising out of award passed in Civil Misc. Thus, the amount of compensation awardable to the appellant/claimant (Sukhdev) is as under: In S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1281/2013 arising out of award passed in Civil Misc. Claim No.16/2009: Particulars Amount awarded by the Tribunal Amount awarded and enhanced by this Court Income Rs.3000/- (per month) Rs.3,000/- (per month) (same as tribunal) Simple injuries (3500x2) [A] 2,000/- 7,000/- Grievous injury (fracture & amputation) (15,000 x 5) [B] Nil 75,000/- Hospitalization from 28.09.2008 to 05.10.2008 (8 days) (1600x8) [C] Nil 12,800/- Amount towards Permanent disability:- [(Permanent disability %) x (Annual Income) x (Multiplier)] (11%) x (3000 x 12) x (18) = 71,280 /- [D] 63,360/- 71,280/- Medical Bills [E] 6,203/- 6,203/- Pain and Suffering [F] 5,000/- 50,000/- TOTAL [A+B+C+D+E+F] 76,563/- [G] 2,22,283/- [H] Enhanced Amount: [H] - [G] Rs.1,45,720/- 8. Accordingly, the misc. appealsm - S.B.CMA Nos.1280/2013 & 1281/2013 as preferred by the respective appellants/claimants are partly allowed. The judgment/award dated 09.04.2013 passed by the learned Tribunal in MAC Case Nos.15/2009 & 16/2009, are enhanced and modified accordingly. The appellants/claimants are thus held entitled to get enhanced compensation of Rs.1,41,120/- in Claim Case No.15/2009 and Rs.1,45,720/- in claim case No.16/2009 in the terms stated above from the respondent Insurance Company in accordance with the directions of the learned Tribunal as modified by this court in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1199/2013 and S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1200/2013 . The enhanced amount shall carry interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of deposit. 9. No order as to costs. Record be sent back forthwith.