The main legal point established in the judgment is that the insurer is liable to pay compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 if the vehicle is covered by the insurance policy, and the court has the authority to increase the compensation amount based on the nature of the injuries and expenses incurred by the claimant.

( 1 ) THESE two appeals arise from the judgment and award dated 6. 3. 1999 in M. V. C. No. 141 of 1994 on the file of M. A. C. T.-V, Bangalore Rural district.

( 2 ) M. F. A. No. 3122 of 1999 is by the claimant and M. F. A. No. 3893 of 1999 is by the insurer.

( 3 ) IN the claim petition, the claimant alleged that he is an employee of Hindustan Machine Tools Limited (H. M. T. for short) that on 6. 7. 1993 he had gone to bangalore along with his colleagues to purchase some materials for his employer, in the employer's van bearing registration no. CAS 587. When returning to Tumkur, the driver of the van drove the van in a rash and negligent manner and while attempting to overtake another vehicle, he saw another vehicle coming from the opposite direction and suddenly applied the brakes. As a result, the door of the van suddenly opened and the claimant who was sitting by the side of the door fell on the road and the van ran over his legs, resulting in grievous injuries to the claimant. He, therefore, filed the said petition claiming a compensation of Rs. 5,50,000. The driver, owner and the insurer of the van were impleaded as respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

( 4 ) THE driver and owner did not contest the proceedings. The insurer alone tested the proceedings by filing statement of objections. As the owner and driver had failed to contest the proceedings, the insur- er also sought permission under section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to contest the claim on merits also. On the pleadings the Tribunal framed the follow- ing issues: (1) Whether the petitioner proves that the driver of the van bearing registration no. CAS 587 was rash and negligent in driving the vehicle on 6. 7. 1993 near bommanahalli Forest and caused griev- ous injuries to the petitioner as alleged in the petition? (2) Whether respondent No. 3 proves that the driver of the van bearing regis- tration No. CAS 587 had no valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and that there is breach of the policy conditions as alleged in the ob- jection statement? (3) Whether respondent No. 3 proves that petitioner contributed and caused the accident as alleged in the objection statement? (4) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, for what amount and from whom? (5) What order or award?

( 5 ) THE claimant examined himself as pw 1 and the doctor who treated him (Dr. K. T. Thomas) as PW 2 and got marked exhs. P-1 to P-40. On behalf of the respondents no one was examined. However, the insurer produced the copy of the insurance policy schedule and it was marked by consent as Exh. R-1.

( 6 ) AFTER appreciating the evidence, the tribunal allowed the claim petition in part by judgment and award dated 6. 3. 1999 holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the said van by its driver. The Tribunal also held that the insurer has failed to prove that the driver did not possess valid licence and also failed to establish that the claimant was guilty of contributory negligence. The tribunal held that the claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs. 2,06,640 with interest at 10 per cent per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. The compensation awarded comprises: compensation towards pain and suffering rs. 40,000; loss of earnings during the period of treatment Rs. 94,640; medical expenses Rs. 15,000; loss of amenities rs. 10,000; incidental expenses relating to nutritious food/diet, conveyance, etc. , rs. 5,000; and loss of earning capacity due to disability Rs. 42,000.

( 7 ) FEELING aggrieved, the claimant has filed M. F. A. No. 3122 of 1999 contending that the compensation awarded is inadequate and praying that the compensation as claimed be awarded.

( 8 ) THE insurer had filed M. F. A. No. 3893 of 1999 contending that the claimant does not fall under the definition of workman and, therefore, insurer is not liable under the terms of the policy, Exh. R-1. Insurer further contended that the insuranc