HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU M.A.C.M.A.Nos.995, 1074, 1098 and 1267 of 2007 COMMON JUDGMENT: M.A.C.M.A.No.995 of 2007 is filed by the New India Assurance Company Limited and M.A.C.M.A.No.1074 of 2007 is filed by the claimant against award dated 08.01.2007 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- IV Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court), Anantapur in O.P.No.15 of 2005. M.A.C.M.A.No.1098 of 2007 is filed by the New India Assurance Company Limited and M.A.C.M.A.No.1267 of 2007 is filed by the claimant against award dated 08.01.2007 passed by the same Tribunal in O.P.No.30 of 2005. In both the matters, the claimants are injured persons in one and the same motor accident involving lorry bearing No.AP-02-U-1831 on 20.01.2001 at about 2.30 P.M. on Tadipatri-Anantapur road. In this appeal, it is not disputed about the fact that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver, in these appeals. The Insurance Company contends that the claimants are unauthorized passengers in goods vehicle and that therefore there is no liability for the insurance company to pay compensation for injuries sustained by them in this accident. On the other hand, the claimants contend that they were travelling in the lorry as loading and unloading coolies and that cement load was taken in the lorry from Tadipatri to Anantapur from Penna Cement Factory and that after unloading cement load at Anantapur, empty lorry was returning to Tadipatri along with coolies, when the accident took place. The claimants as PW.1 in both the cases speak to the fact that they were travelling in the accident lorry as loading and unloading coolies etc., No witness is examined by the Insurance Company to rebut the said evidence of PW.1 in both the petitions in the lower Tribunal. As can be seen from copies of First Information Report and charge sheet from the criminal case record, it is evident that both the injured were travelling in the accident lorry as coolies employed for loading and unloading and that they were returning to the place of loading after unloading the goods at Anantapur. Therefore, I have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that both the claimants were travelling in the accident lorry as coolies for loading and unloading purpose. Admittedly, Ex.B.1 insurance policy relating to the accident vehicle covers risk relating to workmen in the lorry. Therefore, the insurance company cannot avoid its liability to pay compensation in this case. With regard to the quantum of compensation, it is contended by the company’s counsel that the lower Tribunal should not have taken percentage of disability over and above the percentage certified by the medical expert. On the other hand, the claimant’s counsel contended that in the case of Y.Hajee Vali, the petitioner in O.P.No.30 of 2005, the lower Tribunal should have adopted multiplier of ‘14’ instead of ’10.45’. It is further contended that in the case of Shaik Hajee Vali, his age was taken wrongly as 55 years instead of 35 years and that the multiplier should have been ‘16’ and not ‘4.27’ and that having regard to the injuries sustained by him, the lower Tribunal rightly taken percentage of disability as 55% even though the Medical Officer certified only 45% of the disability and that the lower Tribunal should have taken income of the claimants at Rs.100/- per day or atleast Rs.75/- per day instead of Rs.50/- per day. Having regard to the fact that the accident took place in the year 2001, in a backward District like Anantapur, I am of the opinion that the income of the coolies taken at Rs.50/- per day is appropriate and correct. Insofar as age of Shaik Hajee Vali is concerned, his correct age is 35 years and not 55 years. His age is mentioned so in the police record as well as in the medical record. The lower Tribunal erroneously took his age as 55 years. Insofar as medical expenses and pain and suffering are concerned, the lower Tribunal rightly awarded the amounts as mentioned in the respective awards. There is no question of awarding amounts separately for permanent disability as well as loss of future earnings. Loss of future earnings is awarded only because of permanent disability sustained by the claimants. In the case of Shaik Hajee Vali, the amount of compensation for loss of future earnings due to permanent disability at 45% comes to Rs.50/-. 12 X 45/100 X 16 =1,29,600/-. In the case of Y.Hajee Vali, loss of future earnings due to permanent disability has to be calculated taking the multiplier as ‘14’ for his age of 45 years instead of 10.45 adopted by the lower Tribunal. It comes to Rs.50 X 12 X 45/100 X 14 = 1,13,400/-. M.A.C.M.A.No.995 of 2007: In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. M.A.C.M.A.No.1074 of 2007: In the result, the appeal is allowed fixing compensation payable to the claimant at Rs.2,00,000/- (As per the claim made by the claimant in O.P.No.15 of 2005). No costs. M.A.C.M.A.No.1098 of 2007: In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. M.A.C.M.A.No.1267 of 2007 : In the result, the appeal is partly allowed without costs fixing compensation amount at Rs.1,65,400/-. ________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J 16th November, 2010. PNV