K. L. Shrivastava, J

1. This appeal under section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1939 (for short 'the M.V. Act') is directed against the award dated 1-10-1984 made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, West Nimar Mandleshwar in Claim Case No.96 of 1982.

2. Facts not in dispute for the purposes of this appeal are these. The appellant Mangilal (A.W. 2) at the relevant time was employed as first driver of the bus bearing registration number M.P.U. 5034 owned by the respondent No.1 Pramod Shah and insured with the respondent No.3. On 5-5-82 at about 9 a.m. when it was being driven by its second driver, the respondent No.2 Gulsher, it met with an accident on the Khetia-Pansemal road near Khetia. The appellant Mangilal in his capacity as the first driver of the bus was one of the occupants of the bus. As a result of the accident the bus bumped violently and turned on its left side. In consequence, the appellant sustained multiple injuries including communited fracture of tibia of the left leg. He had to remain as an indoor patient for a period of about three months and the wound of the leg had not healed up even by 7-4-1984. He has suffered permanent disability due to the fracture and is not in a position to work as bus-driver.

3. The appellant on 5-11-82 filed a claim petition under section 110-A of the M.V. Act against the owner of the bas, its second driver Gulsher and the insurer, the respondent No.3. According to the claim petition the petitioner, at the time of the accident was aged 40 years, and was earning Rs.1000/- per month inclusive of pay of Rs.600/- and allowances. The accident was occasioned due to rash and negligent driving by the respondent No.2 Gulsher. Towards medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss of earning and loss of expectation of life a claim in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 was laid.

4. The owner and the driver of the accident bus remained ex-parte. The insurer alone contested the claim by denying the averments as to rash and negligent driving. The claim was also assailed as highly exaggerated.

5. At the conclusion of the trial the learned Tribunal held that the accident in question was occasioned due to negligence of the respondent No.2 and that the appellant has sustained several injuries including the fracture as a result of the accident. It held that the defaulting driver of the bus, vicariously his master and under the contract of insurance the insurer of the vehicle were jointly and severally liable towards compensation which it assessed at Rs.24,425/- consisting of Rs.18,900/- for permanent disability; Rs, 4000/- for pain and suffering and the medical expenses.

6. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant in this Court is that the claim is under the M.V. Act and learned Tribunal erred in assessing compensation for permanent disability on the basis of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short the W.C. Act). It is urged that the appellant having become incapacitated to work as driver is in his circumstances, entitled to a higher amount towards compenation. According to the learned counsel the rate of interest at 6% per annum also deserves to be increased

7. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 is that the appellant can certainly take-up other work and the award does not deserve to be interfered with.

8. The point for consideration is whether the amount of compensation is inadequate so as to require interference.

9. On a careful consideration we find that there is force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Tribunal erred in assessing the compensation with reference to the W.C. Act.

10. In the decision in New India Assurance Co. v. Bagdibai 1985 MPLJ 114 it has been pointed out that in the case of personal injury or death of a workman in the course of his employment and arising as a result of motor accident the provisions of the W.C. Act as well as Sections 95 and 96 of the M.V. Act are attracted if the owner of the vehicle is i