THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No. 1900 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed by the insurance company against the order dated 23.10.2003 in M.V.O.P.No.435 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Kadapa questioning the quantum of compensation. A claim was made for Rs.4,25,000/- claiming that the claimant was a driver and mechanic and on 24.09.1995 at about 11.30 AM when he was driving the mini van, he saw some cows coming in opposite direction and the mini van could not be controlled when he wanted to stop it. As a result of which, the mini van turned turtle and the claimant received injuries in the motor accident. The 1st respondent is owner of the vehicle and 2nd respondent is the insurance company. The 1st respondent admitted the employment of the petitioner and also further admitted that he was paid a sum of Rs.4,500/- and the vehicle was insured with the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent, the appellant herein, denied the nature of employment, the age and also the payment of salary to the claimant. The lower Tribunal after considering the rival contentions, accepted the nature of the incident and granted a compensation of Rs.3,85,000/- as against the claim of Rs.4,25,000/-. The learned counsel for the appellant strongly contends that the method of calculation adopted by the lower Tribunal either under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act or under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act is not proper. Since the claimant was admittedly an employee and the incident has happened during the course of his employment on the vehicle insured with the appellant, the calculation shall be only in accordance with the Workmen’s Compensation Act and not under the Motor Vehicles Act. The lower Tribunal has taken into consideration the income of the claimant at Rs.4,000/- per month and yearly income at Rs.48,000/- . Evidently, either under the Workmen’s Compensation Act or under the Motor Vehicles Act, deduction has to be made from the salaried income of the claimant towards his personal expenditure. The claimant appears to be unmarried and if the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act are to be applied, half of the salary has to be deducted and even under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act in case of non-schedule injuries half of the salary has to be deducted while arriving at the compensation. Therefore, while applying any of the provisions of the law, the income that has to be taken into consideration is only at Rs.2,000/- and the yearly income of the claimant comes to Rs.24,000/-. The lower Tribunal has applied the multiplier ‘16’, taking into consideration the age of the claimant. But, however, the facts are not in dispute that the incident has happened only during the course of employment and the liability of the insurance company, which is the appellant herein, is as per the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. As per Section 4(1)(c)(ii) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, the income of the injured has to be taken at Rs.2,000/- and from out of it, 50% has to be deducted and consequently the total compensation comes to Rs.97,609/- rounded off to Rs.1,00,000/-. Therefore, taking into consideration the above facts, the liability of the appellant is limited to Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) from out of the award granted by the lower Tribunal. There is no restriction on the liability of the owner and the limitation of the liability of the insurance company is only under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. From the record, it appears that the appellant has deposited half of the decreetal amount as per the orders of this Court and, therefore, in view of the above circumstances, if the amount has already been received by the claimant, it can be recovered from the owner of the vehicle by the appellant. With the above modification, the appeal is allowed. No costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J 05-09-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No. 1900 of 2011 DATE: 05-09-2011 MR