The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between 'employment injury' and 'motor injury' under the Employees' State Insurance Act, and the applicability of Section 53 of the E.S.I. Act in determining the jurisdiction of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

1. The appellant, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., disputing its liability to pay the award amount directed this appeal.

2. On 05.12.2003, at about 7 p.m., on the Tiruttani–Tirupathi Road, near Dharanivaragapuram Village, the first respondent came driven his bicycle along the road. At that time, the motorcycle belonging to the second respondent, insured with the appellant came driven in a rash and negligent manner hit on the Cyclist. In this accident, the first respondent sustained multiple grievous injuries. He sustained fracture in his left knee and also further injuries on various parts of his body. Immediately, he was taken to the Government General Hospital, Chennai. He was hospitalised for three days (see Ex.P2-discharge summary). Since he is a workman in S.L.V. Spinning Mills, Nagari, in Chittoor District, in Andhra Pradesh, he took voluntary discharge from the said Hospital and admitted himself in the E.S.I. Hospital, Ayanawaram, Chennai. There he was treated an inpatient from 09.12.2003 to 26.06.2004 (see Ex.P4-discharge summary). As against the rider of the motorcycle, Ex.P1-FIR has been registered. On evidence, it was found that it is because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 2nd respondent's motorcycle, the accident had taken place.

3. At the time of accident, the 1st Respondent (P.W.1) was 47 years old. PW2-Dr.Thiyagarajan examined him, perused his treatment records, X-ray and noted fracture of two bones in his left leg, there was malunion of Tibia bone, because of that P.W.1 could not bend his left leg and experiences difficulty while walking and needs crutches to walk. In the circumstances, P.W.2 determined his disability at 60% (see Ex.P11-disability certificate). However, the Tribunal assessed his disability at 55%. Considering all the above aspects, the Tribunal awarded him Rs.55,000/- towards disability, Rs.3,000/- towards transportation charges, Rs.6,000/- towards nutritious food expenses, Rs.1,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.10,000/- for pain and suffering and Rs.25,000/- for loss of future earning and loss of amenities of life. Thus, totally awarded him Rs.1,00,000/-. Since at the time of accident there was insurance coverage for the offending vehicle with the appellant, the Tribunal directed the appellant to pay the compensation amount to the first respondent.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the first respondent is a workman, took treatment in E.S.I. Hospital, Ayanavaram, Chennai. So, his claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (shortly, hereinafter M.V. Act) is barred under Section 53 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948(shortly, hereinafter E.S.I. Act). Thus, the Claims Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition. So, it is to be dismissed. Further, the Tribunal also awarded him excessive compensation.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the first respondent would submit that personal injury was caused to the first respondent. It did not arose out of and in the course of his employment. He did not sustain employment injury. He had sustained only motor injury. Because he is a workman he got himself treated in the hospital maintained by E.S.I. Corporation. He did not receive any compensation from the E.S.I. Corporation. A tortious act has been committed by the driver of 2nd respondent. For which, the first respondent can claim compensation from the Tribunal constituted under the M.V. Act. Section 53 of the E.S.I. Act is not a bar for this. As insurer of the 2nd respondent, the appellant is bound to pay the compensation amount to him. He sustained grievous injury and he is also suffering from continued disability. However, under all heads only less compensation has been awarded.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions.

7. The contentions are two fold, first one relates to the jurisdiction of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the second one relates to the quantum of compensat