Judgment : (Radhakishan Agrawal, J.) 1. Since both the above appeals filed by the Insurance Company arise out of same accident that took place on 12.07.2011, they are being heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. As per averments made in the claim petitions, on 12.07.2011, deceased-Chhabi @ Chhabluram Sahu and injured-Dwarika Prasad Sahu were travelling in the Mahindra Pick-Up bearing registration No.CG04-JB-1592 (hereinafter called as 'offending vehicle') and when they reached near village Chandi, the said offending vehicle turned turtle due to rash and negligent driving by its driver/non-applicant No.1 Girdhari Lal Sahu, as a result of which, deceased- Chhabi @ Chhabluram Sahu sustained grievous injuries over his body and died, whereas injured-Dwarika Prasad sustained multiple injuries over his body. At the time of accident, the offending vehicle was owned by non- applicant No.2 Kawaljeet Singh and was insured with non-applicant No.3 – the Oriental Insurance Company Limited. 3. On account of death of deceased- Chhabi @ Chhabluram Sahu, a claim petition was filed by the claimants (MAC No.662/2015) under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.7,10,000/- under various heads, inter alia pleading that at the time of accident, deceased- Chhabi @ Chhabluram Sahu was aged about 35 years and was earning Rs.40,000/- per year by working as Conductor, whereas on account of injuries sustained by the claimant- Dwarika Prasad Sahu (MAC No.1607/2019) in the said accident, he filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.14,00,000/- under various heads, inter alia pleading that at the time of accident, claimant- Dwarika Prasad Sahu was aged about 44 years and was earning Rs.200/- per day by working as Cleaner. However, the learned 6 th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, C.G. in Claim Case No.126/2012 (MAC No.662/2015) vide award dated 26.02.2015, assessed and awarded the compensation of Rs.6,01,400/- to the claimants with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till its realization and fastened liability upon the non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company. However, the learned 6 th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, C.G. in Claim Case No.126/2012 (MAC No.662/2015) vide award dated 26.02.2015, assessed and awarded the compensation of Rs.6,01,400/- to the claimants with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till its realization and fastened liability upon the non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company. Likewise, the learned 4 th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur to the Court of 1 st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur C.G. in Claim Case No.566/2015 (MAC No.1607/2019) vide award dated 14.05.2019, assessed and awarded the compensation of Rs.79,513/- to the claimant-Dwarika Prasad Sahu with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of application till its realization and fastened liability upon the non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company. Against the said awards, Insurance Company is before this Court by filing appeals separately. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company in MAC No.662/2015 submits that the Tribunal was not justified in fastening the liability on the Insurance Company because at the time of accident, the Driver of the offending vehicle/non-applicant No.1 was not having a valid and effective licence since the vehicle was a transport vehicle whereas the driver of offending vehicle was holding MCWG & LMV for non- transport vehicle and there was no endorsement on the licence authorizing the driver to drive the transport vehicle. He further submits that claimants have filed claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, therefore, claimants are not entitled for grant of any amount towards future prospects and the Tribunal has erred in granting 30% towards future prospects. He also submits that the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards conventional heads is also excessive, which needs to be reduced suitably. In MAC No.1607/2019, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that although at the time of accident, offending vehicle was insured with the appellant/Insurance Company, but injured-Dwarika Prasad Sahu was travelling in the offending vehicle as a gratuitous passenger, therefore, injured-Dwarika Prasad Sahu is not covered under the terms and conditions of Insurance policy and for that Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation to the claimant. On these premises, it is urged by learned counsel for the Insurance Company that Insurance Company be exonerated from its liability. 5. On these premises, it is urged by learned counsel for the Insurance Company that Insurance Company be exonerated from its liability. 5. Learned counsel for the claimant(s) and owner of offending vehicle, while admitting that no separate appeals have been filed by them against the impugned award, jointly submit in MAC No.662/2015 that as per registration certificate (Ex.D-5), the gross vehicle weight of the offending vehicle is 2820 kg and its unladen weight is 1670 kg which is below 7,500 kg and that no endorsement is required to drive the offending vehicle. In this regard, they placed reliance upon a decision in the matter of Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in (2017) 14 SCC 663 , which judgment still holds the field, as per decision of the five-judge Bench's recent order of the Supreme Court in the matter of M/s. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Rambha Devi & Ors. ( Civil Appeal No(s) 841/2018 decided on 06.11.2024 . In MAC No.1607/2019, they submit that at the time of accident, offending vehicle was insured with Insurance Company and its sitting capacity was 2+1 and as per Insurance Policy (Ex.D-2), Insurance Company has received additional premium(s) for covering the risk of PA to Owner Driver; LL-Paid Driver, Conductor and Cleaner and LL to employees, which itself would be sufficient to show that injured- Dwarika Prasad Sahu is covered under the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. Therefore, the Tribunal, after considering the evidence available on record, has rightly fastened the liability upon the Insurance Company, which does not require interference. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. MAC No.662/2015 filed by the Insurance Company 7. Now, the question that arises for consideration before this Court is as to whether the Tribunal was justified in fastening the liability upon the Insurance Company or not. 8. It is not in dispute that on the date of accident, the offending vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company which was valid from 26.08.2010 to 25.08.2011 as per insurance policy (Ex.D-3). As per Ex.D-2, i.e. extract of driving licence of non-applicant no.1/driver of offending vehicle, it is evident that non-applicant no.1/driver offending vehicle was having a licence for motorcycle with gear and LMV which was effective from 18.03.2011 to 17.03.2031 and the accident occurred in this case on 12.07.2011. As per Ex.D-2, i.e. extract of driving licence of non-applicant no.1/driver of offending vehicle, it is evident that non-applicant no.1/driver offending vehicle was having a licence for motorcycle with gear and LMV which was effective from 18.03.2011 to 17.03.2031 and the accident occurred in this case on 12.07.2011. As per Certificate of Registration of the offending vehicle (Ex.D-5) its gross weight is 2820 kg and unladen weight is 1670 Kg. In the matter of Mukund Dewangan (supra), the Supreme Court has held that a person holding LMV (non-transport) is competent to drive the transport vehicle even without there being any endorsement to this effect in the driving licence if the unladen weight of the vehicle does not exceed 7,500 Kg. The relevant paragraphs 60.1, 60.2 and 60.4 of the aforesaid decision is being reproduced as under:- 60.1. “Light motor vehicle” as defined in Section 2(21) of the Act would include a transport vehicle as per the weight prescribed in Section 2(21) read with Sections 2(15) and 2(48). Such transport vehicles are not excluded from the definition of the light motor vehicle by virtue of Amendment Act 54 of 1994. 60.2. A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg would be a light motor vehicle and also motor car or tractor or a roadroller, “unladen weight” of which does not exceed 7500 kg and holder of a driving license to drive class of “light motor vehicle” as provided in Section 10(2)(d) is competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg or a motor car or tractor or roadroller, the “unladen weight” of which does not exceed 7500 kg. That is to say, no separate endorsement on the license is required to drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class as enumerated above. A license issued under Section 10(2)(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54 of 1994 and 28-3-2001 in the form. 60.4. That is to say, no separate endorsement on the license is required to drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class as enumerated above. A license issued under Section 10(2)(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54 of 1994 and 28-3-2001 in the form. 60.4. The effect of amendment of Form 4 by insertion of “transport vehicle” is related only to the categories which were substituted in the year 1994 and the procedure to obtain driving license for transport vehicle of class of “light motor vehicle” continues to be the same as it was and has not been changed and there is no requirement to obtain separate endorsement to drive transport vehicle, and if a driver is holding license to drive light motor vehicle, he can drive transport vehicle of such class without any endorsement to that effect. 9. Further, the Supreme Court, in a recent judgment passed on 06.11.2024 in the matter of M/s. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), held that the principles laid down in the matter of Mukund Dewangan (supra) shall continue to hold the field. 10. In view of aforesaid legal preposition, it is evident that on the date of accident, non-applicant no.1/driver of offending vehicle, who was having a licence for MCWG and LMV, was fully competent to drive the offending vehicle without there being any requirement of such endorsement in his driving licence for driving the said vehicle as its gross weight is much below 7,500 kg as has been held in the matter of Mukund Dewangan & M/s. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd (supra) and the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal fastening liability upon Insurance Company, being based on evidence and material brought on record, is a correct finding of fact. It is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. 11. So far as grant of future prospects is concerned, this Court in the matter of Branch Manager, Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sadhuram Yadav and others, passed in MAC Nos.595 of 2016 and 623 of 2017 on 11.12.2017 reported in MANU/CG/1009/2017 has held in para 13 as under:- “13. As regards the appeal by the claimants, i.e., MAC No.623 of 2017, this court is of the firm view that the claimants shall be entitled for the income under future prospects to be added to the income of the deceased while computing the compensation. As regards the appeal by the claimants, i.e., MAC No.623 of 2017, this court is of the firm view that the claimants shall be entitled for the income under future prospects to be added to the income of the deceased while computing the compensation. The deceased in the instant case was aged around 23-24 years and that his income assessed was Rs.3,000 per month by the Tribunal, i.e., Rs.36,000 yearly. In view of the recent larger Bench decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi , MANU/SC/1366/2017 : 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC), the claimants would be entitled for future prospects to the extent of 40 per cent of the income which in the instant case would come to Rs.14,400 which if added to the yearly income would make it Rs.50,400, of which if half is deducted towards personal expenses, the amount would come to Rs.25,200 which if multiplied by multiplier of 18 would come to Rs.4,53,600. It is ordered accordingly that the claimants shall be entitled for the compensation of Rs.4,53,600 towards loss of dependency.” 12. By applying the aforesaid decision to the facts of the present matter, the claimants in the present case shall also be entitled for the income under future prospects to be added to the income of the deceased while computing compensation. In the present case, the Tribunal considering the pleadings, evidence, oral and documentary, available on record, determined the age of the deceased as 41 years, however, erred in granting 30% towards future prospects, which needs to be reduced suitably. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi , (2017) 16 SCC 680 has considered 25% towards loss of future prospects for the self-employed persons who are aged between 40-50 years. Therefore, in the present case, the applicable percentage of future prospects would be 25% in place of 30% as has been done by the Tribunal. 13. Now, I propose to recompute the compensation by taking into account the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month i.e. Rs.36,000/- per annum, as assessed by the Tribunal. If 25% is added towards future prospects, then the annual income of the deceased would come to Rs.45,000/- (Rs.36,000/- + Rs.9,000/-). 13. Now, I propose to recompute the compensation by taking into account the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month i.e. Rs.36,000/- per annum, as assessed by the Tribunal. If 25% is added towards future prospects, then the annual income of the deceased would come to Rs.45,000/- (Rs.36,000/- + Rs.9,000/-). If one-fourth of the annual income of the deceased is deducted from Rs.45,000/-, then loss of dependency would come to Rs.33,750/- (Rs.45,000/- - Rs.11,250/-) and thus annual income of the deceased is assessed at Rs.33,750/- and if total annual income is multiplied by 14, as used by the Tribunal, the total loss of dependency would come to Rs.4,72,500/- (Rs.33,750/- x 14). Further, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,10,000/- towards conventional heads. After adding Rs.1,10,000/-, as awarded by the Tribunal, then the total compensation would come to Rs.5,82,500/- which the claimants are now entitled in place of Rs.6,01,400/- 14. In view of above discussion, the claimants are entitled to get a total sum of Rs.5,82,500/- with interest as awarded by the Tribunal. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. Accordingly, the impugned award is modified to the extent indicated herein above. MAC No.1607/2019 filed by the Insurance Company 15. In this appeal, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company has vehemently argued that at the time of accident, claimant/injured- Dwarika Prasad Sahu was travelling in the offending vehicle as a gratuitous passenger, therefore, risk of injured-Dwarika Prasad Sahu is not covered under the terms and conditions of Insurance policy and for that Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 16. In order to deal with the contention of learned counsel for the appellant, it would be appropriate to discuss the evidence of AW-1 Dwarika Prasad Sahu/claimant, who has stated in his deposition that on the date of accident i.e. 12.07.2011, he was working as a cleaner and in that capacity, he was travelling in the offending vehicle, whereas NAW-2 Ritesh Kumar Rahangdale, Administrative Officer, has stated that at the time of accident, AW-1 Dwarika Prasad Sahu/claimant was travelling in the offending vehicle as a gratuitous passenger, but the Insurance Company has not examined owner of the offending vehicle to substantiate the above fact, meaning thereby, at the time of accident, injured-Dwarika Prasad Sahu was travelling in the offending vehicle as a cleaner. This apart, as per Insurance Policy (Ex.D-2), at the time of accident, offending vehicle was insured with Insurance Company and its sitting capacity was 2+1 and the Insurance Company has also received additional premium(s) for covering the risk of PA to Owner Driver; LL-Paid Driver, Conductor and Cleaner and LL to employees, which shows that injured- Dwarika Prasad Sahu is covered under the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that the Tribunal, after considering the evidence available on record, has rightly fastened the liability upon the Insurance Company, which does not require any interference by this Court. 17. In the result, MAC No.662/2015 filed by the Insurance Company is allowed in part to the extent indicated herein-above, whereas MAC No.1607/2019 filed by the Insurance Company, being without any substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.