JUDGMENT :

These two appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment since M.A.C.M.A.No.1584 of 2017 filed by the New India Assurance Company Limited and M.A.C.M.A.No.2458 of 2017 filed by the claimant, are directed against the very same order and decree, dated 19.01.2017 made in M.V.O.P.No.1322 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short “the Tribunal”).

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

3. Brief facts of the case are that the claimant has filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1994, claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 04.12.2011. According to the claimant, on 04.12.2011 at about 3:00 p.m., while he, along with his wife, was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing No.AP 20 J 4133 from Kukatpally to L.B.Nagar and when they reached near old Police Control Room, Saifabad, Hyderabad, one Tata Indica Car bearing No.AP 9 BM-0781, owned by respondent No.1 and insured with respondent No.2, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed the motorcycle of the claimant. As a result, the claimant and his wife fell down on the road and received multiple grievous injuries. Immediately, the claimant was shifted to Deccan Hospital, Somajiguda, Hyderabad and from there he was shifted to E.S.I. Hospital, Hyderabad. It is the further case of the claimant that he was aged about 39 years as on the date of the accident and he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month working as Argon welder in GEE PEE Electro Spark Private Limited, Kukatpally and due to the injuries sustained by him, he is unable to sit, squat or to stand, thereby he lost his earning capacity. Therefore, he laid the claim against the respondents seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- under different heads.

4. Before the Tribunal, while respondent No.1 remained ex parte, respondent No.2-Insurance Company has filed counter denying all the averments in the claim-petition including the manner in which the accident took place, age, avocation, earning capacity of the claimant, medical expenditure incurred. It is the specific contention of the Insurance Company that the claim-petition is not maintainable under Section 51 of the E.S.I. Act as the claimant covers under E.S.I. Act. It is further contended that the compensation claimed is highly excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

5. Considering the averments in the claim petition and the counter and both the oral and documentary evidence brought on record, the Tribunal has allowed the O.P. in part awarding compensation of Rs.6,96,500/- with costs and interest at 8% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization payable by both the respondents. Challenging the same, the present appeals came to be filed by the Insurance Company and the claimant respectively.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the claimant, learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company. Perused the material available on record.

7. The only contention advanced by the learned counsel for the claimant (appellant in MACMA No. 2458 of 2017) is that the Tribunal erred in not awarding future prospects as the claimant has suffered 30% permanent disability. Therefore, he prayed to enhance the compensation by allowing the appeal.

8. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company (appellant in MACMA No. 1584 of 2017) has contended that the claimant has taken treatment under E.S.I. Scheme without any expenditure from his pocket and he was applied leave for the period of 04.12.2011 to 25.07.2012 and that the Tribunal failed to consider the fact that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction under Section 53 of the E.S.I. Act to award any compensation. It is further contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on very high side without proper calculation