Judgment :- 1. The appellant-Insurance Company is questioning the legality and correctness of the order passed by the commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Bangalore in WCA.NFC.NO.33/2004 DT.12.7.2006. 2. The Respondent – Raghu filed a petition under Sec.22 of Workmen’s Compensation Act 1923 on the ground that on 30th June 20004 at about 8.00 a.m. he was discharging his duty as a loader and cleaner in the bus bearing No.KA-01-A-248 owned by the Respondent – Sarasamma. He was travelling as a loader and unloader from Thali to Bangalore. When the bus reached Karadidoddi, the bus driver stopped the vehicle and directed the claimant to put the luggage on the top of the bus on the instruction of the driver, when he was about to board the bus, the conductor without observing that the claimant was boarding the bus, gave a signal to the driver, as a result of which the bus moved suddenly, which resulted in claimant fall on the road and sustained grievous injuries to both the hands, head and other parts of the body. Immediately, he was shifted to South Tower Hospital and he underwent surgery. A case was registered against the driver of the vehicle by the Harohalli Police in C.R.No.117/2004. According to the claimant he was getting a salary of Rs.5700/- p.m. and was aged about 22 years, on account of the injuries sustained by him, he is unable to discharge his duties as a loader and unloader and he is also unable to any other day-to-day work. He also got examined the Doctor to show the nature of disability caused to him. According to him, as a result of the accident, he is suffering from Neurological disease and according to the Doctor, it is irreparable, as a result of the injuries he has lost the memory power and also permanent disability to his right lower limb and other parts of the body. 3. The appellant-Insurance Company contended that the claimant was not an employee of Sarasamma and that there was no relationship of master and servant and that the claim petition filed by him before the Commissioner was not maintainable. Therefore, the Insurance Company requested the Commissioner to dismiss the claim petition. Before the Commissioner, the Doctor was also got examined to show the nature of disability caused to the claimant. Therefore, the Insurance Company requested the Commissioner to dismiss the claim petition. Before the Commissioner, the Doctor was also got examined to show the nature of disability caused to the claimant. Since the owner of the bus did not dispute the master and servant relationship, the Commissioner held that there exists a relationship of master and servant and that the claim petition lodged by him was maintainable. Considering the disability caused to the lower limb at 60% and considering the loss of memory, the Commissioner came to the conclusion that the claimant is suffering from 100% disability. Accordingly, he awarded a sum of Rs.3,98,466/-. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. The main contention of the Insurance Company is that the Commissioner did not consider the evidence of the claimant. According to the claimant on the date of the accident, he boarded the bus from Thali to Bangalore and purchased ticket from the conductor. When he has purchased the ticket from the conductor, such persons cannot be considered as an employee in the bus in question as a loader and unloader. Therefore, he contends that the Respondent – claimant could not have been considered as an employee of Sarasamma and he should have been regarded as a passenger in bus. Based on this piece of evidence, he requests the court to dismiss the claim petition by allowing the appeal. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimant contends that one stray sentence in the cross-examination cannot be a ground to dismiss the claim petition. According to her, when the owner has not disputed the master and servant relationship, the Insurance Company cannot take such a stand. She alternatively contends that even if the claimant is considered as a passenger as the liability of the Insurance Company is not in dispute if the claimant as a passenger had filed claim petition before the MACT, the claimant would have been awarded more compensation than what has been awarded in this case. Therefore, considering this aspect of the matter, she requests the court to dismiss the appeal. 7. Therefore, considering this aspect of the matter, she requests the court to dismiss the appeal. 7. Having heard the counsel for the parties, the only point to be considered in this appeal is whether the claim petition filed by the claimant was maintainable or was he required to file an application before the MACT, claiming compensation as passenger. 8. At the outset, the court has noticed that it is the specific case of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the claimant is a passenger and the risk of the passenger is not in dispute. Then the only question is whether the claimant was a passenger in the bus or an employee of Sarasamma, the owner of the vehicle. 9. So far as this point is concerned, admittedly the owner has not filed any written statement. But it is the specific case of the appellant – Insurance Company that the claimant was not there in the bus as an employee. Therefore, to ascertain the same, we have to consider the evidence let in by the parties. 10. The claimant has been examined as witness. He has been cross-examined at length. It would be relevant to extract certain admissions made by the claimant in his cross-examinations: “I have studied up to II Standard. I cannot say in which year I completed the II Standard. I had joined elementary school at Thali village. I have not produced any documents in regard to my age. It is false to say that I am aged more than 30 years. Therefore, I have not produced any document. On 30th June 2004, I boarded the bus at Thali, I purchased a ticket. I have lost the ticket now. I do not know whether the bus is old or new. I have not produced any documents that I was working under the owner of the vehicle, Sarasamma. I have not produced any document to show the same”. 11. From the above evidence, it is clear that the claimant has boarded the bus at Thali village and he has purchased the ticket. If he has purchased the ticket immediately after boarding, it cannot be held that he was employed, because if he was an employee, no employee working in the said vehicle would purchase the ticket. Therefore, as rightly contended by the appellant, the claimant has to be treated as passenger in the bus and got injured. If he has purchased the ticket immediately after boarding, it cannot be held that he was employed, because if he was an employee, no employee working in the said vehicle would purchase the ticket. Therefore, as rightly contended by the appellant, the claimant has to be treated as passenger in the bus and got injured. If the claimant has sustained injuries on account of the negligence act, of the driver he cannot maintain petition under the Workmen’s Compensation Act as he is not a workman. Therefore, we are of the view that the claim petition lodged by the claimant before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation is not maintainable. 12. The next question would be whether the claimant has to be directed to file a claim petition. So far as this point is concerned, since the appellant’s counsel is contending that the claimant was a passenger in the bus and the liability of the Insurance Company is not in dispute, we have to direct the appellant to approach the Tribunal by filing a claim petition under Motor Vehicles Act. We have also examined the quantum of compensation to be payable to the claimant, if a claim petition is lodged before the MACT under the Motor Vehicles Act. 13. Admittedly, the claimant is permanently disabled and is disability cannot be less than 100% as he has lost the limb as well as the loss of memory and is suffering from neurological problem which cannot be repaired as per the evidence of the Doctor. Even if he is considered as an ordinary coolie, while granting compensation to such person, the Tribunal is required to award compensation under the heads, pain and suffering, medical expenses, loss of income during the period of treatment, amount spent towards the conveyance, attendant’s charge, nourishment and also the future medical expenses and in addition of the loss of amenities in life. The claimant is also entitled to claim compensation for the future loss of income. Even if these things are considered, the compensation awarded by the Commissioner is far less. The claimant is also entitled to claim compensation for the future loss of income. Even if these things are considered, the compensation awarded by the Commissioner is far less. Therefore, considering that the claimant was wrongly prosecuting the claim petition by filing a claim petition before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, in order to see that he is survived till be gets the fruits of the decree before the MACT, as he is suffering from 100% disability, we are of the opinion that out of the amount already deposited by the Insurance Company before this Court, a sum of Rs.2 ½ lakhs shall be paid to the Respondent – claimant subject to the result of the petition before MACT, which would be filed by the claimant and the remaining amount has to be returned to the appellant. 14. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The claim petition filed by the Respondent before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Bangalore, under Sec.22 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act is not maintainable. Accordingly, we allow this appeal and the claim petition filed by the Respondent – claimant is dismissed. Liberty is granted to the Respondent to file a claim petition before the MACT, within three months from today. Considering the nature of disability caused to the claimant, out of the amount deposited, a sum of Rs.2 ½ lakhs shall be paid to the claimant and the remaining amount shall be returned to Appellant – Insurance Company. The amount of Rs.2 ½ lakhs paid to the claimant would be subject to the result of the MACT and the Insurance Company is entitled to claim set off. Parties to bear the costs.