The main legal point established in the judgment is the principles for awarding compensation in personal injury cases, especially in cases of disability, as laid down in the Motor Vehicles Act and relevant case laws.

JUDGMENT :

1. These two appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment since M.A.C.M.A.No.2539 of 2014 filed by the National Insurance Company Limited and M.A.C.M.A.No.1134 of 2019 filed by the claimant, seeking enhancement of the compensation, are directed against the very same order and decree, dated 26.06.2013 passed in O.P.No.2256 of 2009 on the file of the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-XV Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad (for short “the Tribunal”).

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The facts, in issue, are as under:

4. The claimant filed a petition under Sections 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the respondents 1 and 2, claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident that occurred on 27.07.2009. It is stated that on the said date, while the petitioner was going to Vijayawada as Cleaner in a Lorry bearing No.AP 24 W 6127 belongs to the 1st respondent and when the said lorry was going at the outskirts of Gundrapalli Village on the national highway No.9 at a culvert turning, the driver of the said lorry drove the same in high speed without observing the front going vehicle and opposite coming lorry, as such, the driver of the said lorry suddenly applied brakes and that there were jerks in the cabin of the lorry and as a result of which, the left side door of the cabin of the lorry was unlocked and the claimant, who was the cleaner and who was sitting in the cabin, fell down from the cabin and his right leg and right hand were ran over by the rear left wheels of the lorry. The accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry. Immediately after the accident, the claimant was shifted to Medicare Hospital, L.B.Nagar, where his right leg was amputated. Thus, the claimant filed claim-petition against the respondents 1 and 2 claiming compensation for the disability sustained by him.

5. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent remained ex parte and the 2nd respondent filed counter denying the averments made in the claim-petition. It is also stated that the claimant shall prove that the driver of the Lorry was having valid driving licence at the time of accident, if not proved, the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. It is further stated that the claimant has to prove his age, income and occupation. It is also stated that the compensation claimed by the claimant is highly excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim-petition.

6. On behalf of the claimant, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A11 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence was adduced but Ex.B1 was marked.

7. After analyzing the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Lorry bearing No. AP 24 W 6127 and accordingly awarded an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- as compensation to be paid by the respondents. Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded, the present appeal is filed by the /claimant.

8. Learned Counsel for the claimant mainly submits that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on lower side. It is further submitted that as per the disability certificate the appellant had sustained 80% permanent disability, as such, the claimant is entitled to Rs.3,00,000/- under the heads of loss of expectation of life and loss of amenities in life.

9. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company would submit that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the injured was a cleaner and the alleged accident was occurred during the course of employment, the Tribunal has to pass the award by restricting as per the W.C.Act, but without doing so, erroneously passed the award, which is liable to be set aside.

10. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the Tribunal has framed Issue No.1 as to whether the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of t