The interpretation of the driver's license requirements under Section 10 of the Act, as clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, influenced the decision to set aside the exoneration of the Insurance Company and modify the compensation award.

JUDGMENT

1. The matter comes up for orders as respondent No. 3 has not been served.

2. Learned counsel for the parties have made submissions pertaining to the merit of the appeal.

3. This appeal is directed against judgment and award dated 02.05.2014 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (First), Jodhpur, whereby, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.30,842/- to the appellant and has exonerated the Insurance Company from liability to pay compensation.

4. From a perusal of the judgment and submissions made by learned counsel for parties, it appears that the driver of the offending vehicle was having license to drive 'light motor vehicle' and, therefore, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that as the Insured Vehicle was a Loading Taxi i.e. a 'light transport vehicle', he was not in possession of a valid driving license and consequently, exonerated the Insurance Company.

5. While assessing the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal awarded Rs.2,000/- towards simple injuries, Rs. 15,000/- towards grievous injury, Rs.8,042 towards medical expenses, Rs.3,000/- towards loss to the scooter of the claimant and under rest of the heads, a lump-sum of Rs.10,000/- was awarded. However, while totalling the compensation, it was directed that the claimant was entitled to compensation of Rs.30,842/- alongwith interest @ 8.5% per annum from the date of application i.e. 09.04.2010.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the issue about the liability of the Insurance company is covered by judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.: (2016) 4 SCC 298, wherein, it has been held that for driving a 'light transport vehicle', license to drive 'light motor vehicle' was sufficient and the same was not in violation of policy conditions.

7. Further submissions have been made that besides the fact that the Tribunal has made totalling mistake while awarding compensation, wherein, instead of awarding Rs.38,842/- a sum of Rs.30,842/- only has been awarded, though the claimant remained on leave for 56 days and his monthly salary was Rs.35,500/-, for the period spent on leave, no compensation has been awarded.

8. Submissions have also been made that no amount has been awarded towards pain and suffering and, therefore, the award deserves to be enhanced appropriately.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company could not dispute the fact that the issue pertaining to the liability of the Insurance Company was covered by judgment in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra). Qua the quantum of compensation, it was submitted that the compensation awarded is adequate and that the Tribunal has awarded lump-sum compensation towards the aspects for which no specific compensation has been indicated and, therefore, no interference is called for in the award impugned.

10. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

11. Insofar as, the liability of the Insurance Company is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra) inter-alia laid down as under:-

"46. Section 10 of the Act requires a driver to hold a licence with respect to the class of vehicles and not with respect to the type of vehicles. In one class of vehicles, there may be different kinds of vehicles. If they fall in the same class of vehicles, no separate endorsement is required to drive such vehicles. As light motor vehicle includes transport vehicle also, a holder of light motor vehicle licence can drive all the vehicles of the class including transport vehicles. It was pre-amended position as well the post-amended position of Form 4 as amended on 28.3.2001. Any other interpretation would be repugnant to the definition of "light motor vehicle" in section 2(21) and the provisions of section 10(2)(d), Rule 8 of the Rules of 1989, other provisions and also the forms which are in tune with the provisions. Even otherwise the forms never inten