JUDGMENT

Sunil K. Kotwal, J. - First Appeal No. 1491 of 2015 is filed by the original claimant and First Appeal No.1541 of 2015 is filed by United India Insurance Company (original respondent No.2 and 3) against one and the same judgment and award passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mukhed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.795/2004.

2. Respondents Nos. 1(a) to (c) are the registered owner of tractor bearing registration No. MH-26-C-1982 and United India Insurance Company was the insurer of this tractor on the date and time of the accident. Respondent No.4 Bhanudas Ambaji Shankar was the registered owner of Trolley bearing registration No. MIB- 6366 (new registration No. MH-24-E-7500), which is also involved in the same accident, which took place on 05.11.1999 near Dhadakmal name plate of Halani to Mukramabad road at about 1.00 p.m.

3. These both appeals are disposed of by this common judgment.

4. Original claimant has challenged the judgment and award on the ground that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and needs to be enhanced to the extent of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh) with interest at the rate of 9 % per annum from the date of filing of petition, instead the interest awarded by the Tribunal from 27.11.2014. The Insurance Company has challenged the judgment and award on the ground of breach of condition of policy, as the claimant was travelling by the offending trailer drawn by the offending tractor, as gratuitous passenger.

5. The facts leading to institution of the Claim Petition are that on 05.11.1999 the claimant and other persons were travelling by offending tractor and trailer towards Mukramabad and on the way at about 1.00 p.m. on account of rash and negligent driving by the tractor driver, accident occurred and in that accident claimant sustained serious injury to her left leg resulting into amputation of her left leg above the knee joint.

6. Heard strenuous arguments submitted by Mr. Ram Shinde, learned Counsel for the original claimant Dhondubai, Mr. S.G. Chapalgaonkar, learned Counsel for United India Insurance Company and Mr. Bhandari, learned Counsel for original respondent No.4 Bhanudas Ambaji Shankar, who was the owner of the trailer.

7. Learned Counsel for the original claimant submits that at the time of occurrence of the accident, the claimant was travelling by offending tractor and trailer as loading and unloading labourer, and therefore, the claimant does not fall within the category of gratuitous passenger. He submits that premium of Rs. 15/- is paid in the policy of insurance of offending trailer for the transport of loading and unloading labours.

8. The next contention of the learned Counsel for original claimant is that in the written statement the Insurance Company has not taken a plea that the claimant was travelling by offending trailer as gratuitous passenger. He submits that only on the ground of stray admission given by claimant Dhondubai (PW-1) In her cross-examination that on the date of accident she was not working as a labourer, inference cannot be drawn that the claimant was travelling as a gratuitous passenger. Therefore, Insurance Company is equally liable to pay compensation alongwith owners of the offending tractor and trailer.

9. His next submission is that while awarding compensation, learned Tribunal did not consider the notional income of woman labourer and loss of future income due to amputation of her left leg from above the knee joint. He also submits that the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded interest at the rate of Rs. 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition. He has drawn my attention towards the evidence of Medical Officer Dr. Sudam Munishwar (PW-3) who has proved permanent disability certificate (Exh.107). Learned Counsel placed reliance on the judgments in the cases of " Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and another" [ 2011 (1) ALL MR 402 (S.C.) ], " V. Mekala vs. M. Malathi and another" (2014 AIR SCW 2973), "Syed Sadiq and others vs.