Ramachandran Nair, J.

The appellant is the third respondent in O.P.(MV) No.83/2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad. The claimant filed the application claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.7 Lakhs and the Tribunal awarded Rs.6,27,500/- with 7.5% interest.

2. The accident occurred on 19.9.2004 at 2.30 p.m. The claimant was working as a cleaner in the lorry bearing Reg. No.KL-9M/9439 and was travelling to Palakkad from Ernakulam. When they reached Aluva, it is alleged, that a Police Officer caused the bus bearing registration No.TN-01 N/6743 which was going in front of the lorry, to be stopped for checking.

The bus suddenly stopped without showing any signal and the lorry hit on the rear side of the bus. The claimant sustained serious injuries. He was taken to Karothukuzhy Hospital, Aluva. After obtaining first aid, he was taken to RV Accidents and Trauma Research Institute, Palakkad and was treated till 24.9.2004. Thereafter, he was admitted in the Jubilee Mission Hospital. On 7.10.2004 his left leg was amputated above knee cap.

3. The claimant was aged only 23 years at the time of accident. He had earned a valid driving licence and badge. As the leg has been amputated above knee cap, he is unable to do any work. Accordingly, the claim was laid.

4. The Insurance Company, the appellant herein contended that the claim is excessive. It was admitted that the vehicle involved, viz. KL-9M/9439 was insured with the appellant company. Before the Tribunal, the owner of the bus, viz. the Managing Director, State Express Transport Corporation Ltd. and its driver and Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation Ltd., Madras were also impleaded. Thus, the owners and drivers of both the vehicles and the insurance company were parties.

5. As regards the aspect of negligence, the Tribunal found that no negligence can be attributed to the driver of the bus. The Tribunal found that going by Ext.A14 disability certificate, the disability is 40%, but it can be assessed as 100% since being a cleaner, he will not be able to do any work. He was having licence as a driver also.

6. We heard learned counsel for the appellant Company, Shri Jyothiprasad and Shri Rajesh Sivaramankutty, learned counsel for the claimant.

7. Shri Jyothiprasad, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant contended mainly that the disability assessed is excessive. Even if the leg was amputated, he can do other work and therefore it cannot be reckoned as 100%. He further contended that since the negligence is attributed only to the driver of the lorry, the claimant is entitled for compensation only to the extent allowable under the Workmen's Compensation Act and therefore the award of compensation at Rs.6,27,500/- cannot be justified.

8. As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the claimant/first respondent is admittedly disabled due to amputation of leg. Even though the Insurance Company had taken a contention that he was a gratuitous passenger, the same was not accepted by the Tribunal. The evidence of the first respondent as P.W.1 clearly shows that he was working as a cleaner in the lorry. According to him, he was getting a monthly salary of Rs.3,500/-. Ext.A13 is the driving licence of the claimant. The owner of the lorry was examined as R.W.1 who also deposed that the claimant was the cleaner in the lorry for the last three years and his daily wages was Rs.150/-. It was also deposed by him that after the accident he did not turn up for work. In these circumstances, the Tribunal accepted the case of the claimant that he was working as a cleaner in the lorry. Even though learned Standing Counsel for the appellant submitted that the said aspect has not been properly proved, according to us, in the light of the evidence of P.W.1 and R.W.1, the Tribunal was right in concluding that the claimant was working as a cleaner, and was not a passenger at all.

9. Learned counsel for the claimant relied upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court i