Compensation can be granted for permanent disability apart from functional disability.

1. Aggrieved by the Award in MVOP No.305 of 2007 passed by MACT-cum-III Additional District Judge, Tirupathi (for short “the Tribunal”) both claimant and 2nd respondent/Insurance Company preferred MACMA Nos.3763 of 2009 and 54 of 2010 respectively.

2. The factual matrix of the case is thus:

a) On 04-08-2006 at about 5 PM when the claimant was boarding the bus bearing No.AP 03 U 2977 in front of Ladies Club near Collector’s Bungalow, Chittoor to go to Estate, the conductor of the bus without observing the claimant, negligently gave signal to the driver and thereby the driver moved the bus in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed and thereby the claimant fell down and the left side rear wheel of the offending bus ran over the claimant and thereby he suffered fracture to both the legs, for which he took treatment in CMC Hospital, Vellore. His further case is that he was working as Supervisor in Singapore Egg Mart, Chittoor and earning Rs.6,000/- per month and due to injuries he became permanently disabled and unable to walk and attend his job and hence he suffered loss of earnings. It is further averred that accident was occurred due to the fault of driver of the bus. On these pleas, he filed MVOP No.305 of 2007 against respondents 1 and 2, who are the owner and insurer of the offending bus and claimed Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation under different heads.

b) First respondent remained ex-parte.

c) Second respondent/Insurance Company filed counter and opposed the claim denying all the material averments in the petition. R2 denied the method and manner of occurrence of accident and petitioner’s plea of fault of driver. R2 contended that accident was occurred due to the fault of claimant himself, as he in order to catch the moving bus ran and fell down and sustained the injuries and there was no fault of the bus driver. Secondly, it denied the age, avocation and income of the petitioner as pleaded in the petition. Thirdly, R2 denied the petitioner’s plea of suffering permanent disability. R2 further contended that the first respondent is not the registered owner of the bus and it has no valid permit. It also contended that the driver has no valid driving license. Finally, R2 contended that claim is highly excessive and exorbitant.

c) During trial PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 and X1 and X2 were marked on behalf of the claimant. Policy copy filed by R2 was marked as Ex.B1.

d) A perusal of the award would show that issue No.1 is concerned, the Tribunal relying upon the evidence of PW1—claimant coupled with Ex.A1—FIR and A4—charge sheet, gave a finding that the bus driver was responsible for the accident. Issue No.2 which relates to quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal having relied upon the evidence of PW3—doctor who issued disability certificate accepted the disability of the claimant as 35% permanent and granted compensation under various heads as follows:

Thus, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.2,28,040/- with proportionate costs and simple interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of OP till the date of realization against the respondents 1 and 2. Hence, the appeal by the claimant on the ground of inadequacy of compensation and the appeal by 2nd respondent/Insurance Company on the ground of excessiveness of compensation.

3. Heard Sri S.V.Muni Reddy, learned counsel for appellant-claimant in MACMA No.3763 of 2009/1st respondent in MACMA No.54 of 2010 and Sri Sriman, learned counsel for appellant-Insurance Company in MACMA No.54 of 2010/2nd respondent in MACMA No.3763 of 2009.

4 a) Learned counsel for appellant in MACMA No.3763 of 2009 while criticizing the quantum of compensation as too low and inadequate firstly argued that the Tribunal while computing loss of earning power due to disability has taken a very low amount of Rs.15,000/- p.a as the income of the claimant, though in fact he was earning Rs.6,000/- p.m by working as Supervisor in Singapore Egg Mart, Chittoor. Learned