JUDGMENT : (UMESH M. ADIGA, J.) These appeals arise out of judgment and award dated 2 nd September 2013, passed by the III Addl.Senior Civil Judge and M.A.C.T., Bengaluru City, (SCCH-18), (for short `Tribunal'), in MVC No.541/2012. MFA.No.1746/2014 is filed by the claimant for enhancement of the compensation and MFA.No.10321/2013 is filed by the Insurance Company challenging fastening of liability on the insurer to pay the compensation. Both appeals arise out of common judgment and hence taken up together for disposal. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 3. It is the case of the claimant that on 06.10.2011, around 1.30 p.m., while he was going on motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-41-R-3364 towards Nandi Hills road, near Rangapa Circle of Chikkaballapura, he met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of Appe autorickshaw bearing registration No.KA-43-3146 (for short `offending vehicle'), by its driver. As a result of which, claimant sustained fracture of both bones in the right leg. He had taken treatment in Fortis Hospital, Bangalore, and spent more than Rs.1,20,000/- towards medical expenses. Due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident, he has been suffering from permanent disability, which has affected his earning capacity. With these reasons, he prayed to award compensation of Rs.6,50,000/-. 4. Respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte. Respondent No.2 - insurer denied the contentions of the claim petitioner. It also denied its liability to pay compensation. With these reasons, prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 5. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues. 6. Claimant to prove his case, examined three witnesses as PW-1 to PW-3 and marked 14 documents from Exs.P-1 to P-14. Respondent No.2 examined one witness as RW-1 and marked two documents at Exs.R-1 and R-2. 7. The Tribunal after hearing both parties and appreciating the evidence on record, awarded compensation of Rs.2,59,294/-. The Tribunal assessed the age of the claimant as 33 years; his earning as Rs.200/- per day, applied the multiplier of `16', assessed the disability to an extent of 10% to the whole body and calculated the compensation. The Tribunal directed the respondent No.2-insurer to pay the compensation. The Tribunal awarded following compensation : Particulars Amount in Rs. The Tribunal assessed the age of the claimant as 33 years; his earning as Rs.200/- per day, applied the multiplier of `16', assessed the disability to an extent of 10% to the whole body and calculated the compensation. The Tribunal directed the respondent No.2-insurer to pay the compensation. The Tribunal awarded following compensation : Particulars Amount in Rs. Pain and agony 35,000/- Loss of income during laid of period, rest, nourishment and attendant charges 5,000/- Medical expenses 76,094/- Future medical expenses 10,000/- Loss of future income 1,15,200/- Loss of amenities 15,000/- Conveyance 3,000/- Total Rs.2,59,294/- Same is challenged in the present appeal by both the claimant and the insurer. 8. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the claimant as well as the insurer. 9. Learned counsel for the claimant contends that the income taken by the Tribunal is on the lower side. As per the evidence of PW-2 doctor, the disability suffered by the claimant to whole body is 14.5%, but the Tribunal has taken disability as 10%. The compensation awarded under other heads are also on the lower side. Therefore, prayed to enhance compensation. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent-insurer contends that at the time of the accident, driver of the offending vehicle was not holding effective and valid driving license. He was authorised to drive light motor vehicle, but he was driving a transport vehicle. The owner violated the terms of policy. Therefore, insurer is not liable to indemnify the owner. Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim against the insurer. 11. The learned counsel for the insurer further fairly submitted that in view of subsequent development in the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan -vs- Oriental Insurance Company Limited , [ (2017) 14 SCC 663 ] , which was upheld by the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Limited -vs- Rambha Devi , [ (2025) 3 SCC 95 ] , the contention of respondent No.2 may not survive at present. Therefore, prayed to pass suitable order accordingly. 12. Learned counsel for the insurer further submits that Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 8% p.a., which is exorbitant and not permissible, therefore interest rate be reduced to 6% p.a. 13. Following points arises for consideration: (i) Whether the claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation? Therefore, prayed to pass suitable order accordingly. 12. Learned counsel for the insurer further submits that Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 8% p.a., which is exorbitant and not permissible, therefore interest rate be reduced to 6% p.a. 13. Following points arises for consideration: (i) Whether the claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation? (ii) Whether the interest awarded by the Tribunal is exorbitant? (iii) Whether fastening of liability on respondent No.2 to pay compensation by the Tribunal is justified? (iv) What order? Point Nos.1 and 2 : 14. It is not in dispute that accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the said autorickshaw. Tribunal after appreciation of the evidence, rightly held that accident had taken place due to negligence of driver of the offending vehicle and it does not call for any interference. 15. Claimant examined himself as PW-1. In his evidence, he has reiterated the averments made in the claim petition. He stated the injuries suffered by him in the accident in question and the disability affecting his day-to- day work. He examined PW-2 Medical Officer, who was summoned to produce the records. The said records are marked as Exs.P-10 to P-12. He examined PW-3 Dr.B.Ramesh to prove his disability. According to his evidence, claimant suffered permanent disability to an extent of 29% in the right lower limb and 14.5% to the whole body. Claimant has produced necessary medical records in this regard. 16. The medical records reveal that the claimant sustained fracture of both bones of right leg and he took treatment as an inpatient for five days. The said fractures are united. 17. Claimant has not proved that he was earning Rs.8,000/- per month. Therefore, his national income has to be assessed. He was aged about 32 to 33 years at the time of the accident. As per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, the notional income of the victim of an accident of the year 2011 could be taken as Rs.6,500/- per month. Same can be applied to the facts of the present case. 18. There is no dispute in respect of age of the claimant. Therefore, the suitable multiplier applicable is `16' as per Sarla Verma -vs- Delhi Transport Corporation and others, , [ (2009) 6 SCC 121 ] . Same can be applied to the facts of the present case. 18. There is no dispute in respect of age of the claimant. Therefore, the suitable multiplier applicable is `16' as per Sarla Verma -vs- Delhi Transport Corporation and others, , [ (2009) 6 SCC 121 ] . PW-3 doctor has stated that permanent disability of the claimant to the right lower limb is 29% and 15% to the whole body, which is not consistent with ALEMCO Manual or Gazette published by the Central Government. Moreover, if there is any disability to the lower limb, 1/3 rd of the same shall be considered as disability to the whole body. However, the Tribunal looking at the facts of the case, decided the permanent disability at 10%, which is proper and just. 19. Further, looking at the nature of injuries and the treatment taken by the claimant, the amount of compensation awarded under other heads are on the lower side, which needs enhancement. 20. Accordingly, following amount of compensation is awarded: Particulars Amount in Rs. Pain and suffering 35,000/- Loss of income during laid of period, rest, nourishment and attendant charges (Rs.6,500/- x 3) 19,500/- Medical expenses 76,094/- Future medical expenses 25,000/- Loss of future earning capacity due to permanent disability (Rs.6,500/- x 12 x 16 x 10%) 1,24,800/- Loss of amenities 25,000/- Special diet and conveyance charges 15,000/- Total Rs.3,20,394/- Thus, the claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.61,100/-. 21. The Tribunal at its wisdom considered the facts and awarded 8% interest per annum. It is the discretion of the Tribunal to award interest. It is not exorbitant. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal. However, in respect of enhanced amount, the rate of interest will be 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of its realization. In view of the above discussion, point Nos.1 and 2 are answered accordingly. Point No.3 : 22. It is the contention of the insurer that driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the said class of vehicle. Undisputedly, driver of the offending vehicle was holding licence to drive light motor vehicle, but not transport vehicle. He was driving the light motor vehicle (transport). There is no proper endorsement of the RTO on the said licence. Undisputedly, driver of the offending vehicle was holding licence to drive light motor vehicle, but not transport vehicle. He was driving the light motor vehicle (transport). There is no proper endorsement of the RTO on the said licence. On this technical ground, respondent No.2 insurer earlier disowning its liability to pay the compensation. 23. As fairly submitted by learned counsel for respondent No.2 and as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra) and in the case of Rambha Devi (supra), the driver, who was authorized to drive light motor non- transport vehicle, can drive light motor transport vehicle without necessary endorsement of the concerned RTO on the said licence and on that ground, insurer cannot disown its liability to pay compensation. The law laid down in the said judgments is applicable to the facts of the present case. 24. In view of the said reasons, I answer point No.3 in the affirmative. 25. Undisputedly, the respondent No.1 being the owner and respondent No.2 being the insurer are liable to pay the said amount. 26. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) MFA.No.1746/2014 filed by the claimant is allowed in- part and MFA.No.10321/2013 filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed. ii) The judgment and award dated 2 nd September 2013, passed in MVC.No.541/2012, by the Court of III Addl.Senior Civil Judge and M.A.C.T., Bengaluru City (SCCH-18), stands modified. iii) The claimant is entitled to enhancement of Rs.61,100/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on the enhanced amount, from the date of petition till its realization. iv) The Respondent No.2 being insurer of the offending vehicle shall deposit the amount within a period of six weeks from the date of award. v) The enhanced amount of compensation is meager, therefore, entire enhanced amount of compensation shall be released in favour of the claimant on proper identification. vi) Whatever amount deposited by the insurer in MFA.No.10321/2013, shall be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal for disbursement in favour of the claimant. vii) Draw award accordingly. Registry is directed to send back the records along with a copy of this judgment to the concerned Tribunal.