THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU M.A.C.M.A.No.2753 of 2008 ORDER: Aggrieved by award dated 25.08.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-XIII Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad in O.P.No.2797 of 2002, the Insurance Company filed this appeal. For injuries sustained by the first respondent/claimant in road accident relating to Ambassador Car bearing No. AP 28T 9591, of which the first respondent/claimant was driver, the lower Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.78,825/-. In this appeal, there is no dispute about factum of accident involving the insured car and about the first respondent/claimant sustaining injuries in the accident. The appellant questions its liability to pay compensation to driver of the accident car on the ground that the accident took place due to his own rash and negligent driving. The injured contends that the accident took place during the course of his employment as driver of the car under the second respondent who is its owner and who is the insured. According to the injured, the accident occurred when he applied sudden brakes near Veltoor bus stage on National Highway No.7 as a bullock cart came suddenly across the road, due to which the car slipped and went aside and dashed a roadside tree. Though the injured filed claim petition before the lower Tribunal originally under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, he got the petition amended making claim under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act. In the claim petition he made a claim for Rs.4,00,000/- for injuries sustained by him. Though Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act expects rash or negligent driving on the part of the erring vehicle driver, Section 163-A of the Act is applicable irrespective of existence of rash or negligent driving of the vehicle driver. Section 163-A is a special provision for payment of compensation on structured formula basis. Ex.B1 Insurance Policy covers risk of driver of the insured vehicle also. Hence, the Insurance Company cannot avoid payment of compensation to the vehicle driver who is the injured in this case. It is contended by the first respondent’s counsel that the amount of compensation awarded by the lower Tribunal is too low and that the lower Tribunal took into account disability to the extent of 5% only even though Ex.A5 Disability Certificate gives disability of the injured as 30%. But the injured/first respondent did not file any appeal or cross appeal or cross objections questioning award passed by the lower Tribunal. The first respondent’s counsel placing reliance on NAGAPPA V. GURUDAYAL SINGH[1] of the Supreme Court contended that the Tribunal has to grant just compensation and that there is no other limitation or restriction on its power for awarding just compensation. When the lower Tribunal awarded compensation and if the injured is aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the lower Tribunal, then he has to file either an independent appeal or a cross appeal or at least cross objections in this appeal. Without doing so, the first respondent/injured cannot attack the award in this appeal filed by his adversary. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs. ______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J 29.11.2010 lvl THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU M.A.C.M.A.No.2753 of 2008 Dt. 29.11.2010 [1] (2003) 2 Supreme Court Cases 274