1. Appeal is by the claimant and cross-objections is by the insurer against the judgment and award in M.V.C.No.7246/2005 dated 12.12.2006 on the file of XVI Additional Judge, MACT, Bangalore.

2. Appellant has sought for enhancement of compensation whereas the insurer has questioned the liability.

3. The parties are referred to as per the ranking in the Tribunal.

4. The brief facts leading to this case are:

i) Claimant sought for compensation of Rs.15 Lakhs for the injuries sustained in a road traffic accident interalia alleging that he was working as a cleaner cum loader, earning Rs.5,000/- per month. On 05.06.2005, he traveled in a Mini Goods Tempo Tata-709 bearing Registration No.KA-04-AA/7475. The said vehicle as driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which, the driver lost control and vehicle dashed against the road side tree. As a result of which, claimant suffered severe injuries on his left leg, left thigh and other parts of the body. He was immediately shifted to Gubbi Government Hospital where first aid was given and from there, he was shifted to District Hospital, Tumkur and from there, he was shifted to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital, Bangalore, where he underwent treatment as inpatient and during the course of treatment, his leg was amputated above the knee.

ii) The claim petition was contested by the insurer admitting the coverage of the risk of an employee. However, contended that the policy was act policy though it is styled as a package policy. Even if it is a package policy, there is no special package to cover the risk of an employee-cleaner. The Tribunal on the basis of the evidence on record has awarded compensation of Rs.5,90,500/-with 6% interest as against this judgment, appeal and cross-objections have been filed.

5. Sri. S.P. Shankar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant has not disputed that the claimant was a cleaner cum loader in a mini goods vehicles, which met with an accident and caused injuries to the claimant. He submitted that claimant being a cleaner cum loader is a manual labor. His left leg above the knee has been amputated. He has been totally disabled. He is not a fit person to carry on any other work. Such an injury cannot be treated as partial disability for his avocation. The injury has caused 100% permanent disability. He also submitted that, in case of an employee, the special coverage is not necessary as Section 147 Proviso covers the risk of an employee if the employee sustains injuries arising out of or in course of employment. To support his contention, he relied on a decision of the Division Bench of this Court reported in ILR 1988 KAR 136 in the matter of Biddappa –vs- KSRTC, and submitted that even if the injury sustained by the employee in the course of his employment and is schedule injury. However, if there is permanent total disablement and if it is proved by the evidence, notwithstanding the fact that the injury suffered by the workman is one of those specified injury in Part II of Schedule I, such employee is entitled for compensation in accordance with Schedule IV. He also relied on judgment reported in 2010 AIR SCW 437 in the matter of S. Suresh –vs- Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and another and submitted that incase of a driver, where his right leg is amputated, the Supreme Court has observed that amputation of his right leg below knee renders him to be unfit to work as driver and in such cases, it has to be treated as 100% loss of earning capacity. He also relied on the full bench judgment of this Court reported in AIR 2003 2996 in the matter of Bhimappa and others –vs- Bhankar atlas Adya and others and submitted that claim petition though filed under the provisions of the M.V. Act, the Tribunal has a power to determine the compensation in terms of the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 and if there is a coverage of the employee, he is entitled for full compensation irrespective of the scheduled injury.