Judgment : 1. The 2nd respondent-insurer in O.P.No.917 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum District Judge, Nizamabad (the Tribunal, for short), preferred the present appeal assailing the award granting compensation at Rs.3,41,000/-together with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition till deposit in favour of the sole petitioner before the Tribunal. 2. The petitioner before the Tribunal is the 1st respondent herein. The 1st respondent before the Tribunal is arrayed as the 2nd respondent. The 1st respondent filed a petition under Section 166(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the M.V. Act, for short) claiming compensation at Rs.10,00,000/-. It is the case of the 1st respondent that on 10-4-1999 he was travelling in lorry bearing registration No.ATT-1875 owned by the 2nd respondent-insured with the appellant as a cleaner. At about 2.00 p.m., when the driver of the lorry drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner, the lorry turned turtle near Jeevadan Hospital near Mobin Poultry Farm near Gandimasanipet village. The 1st respondent sustained fracture of both the bones of both the legs. He also sustained fracture of the ribs, upper end of the left tibia and other multiple grievous injuries. The 1st respondent was treated initially at the Government Hospital, Yellareddy. He claimed that he underwent treatment subsequently from a private doctor. 3. The 1st respondent, who was 25 years at the time of the accident, claimed that he was working as a cleaner and milk vendor and was earning Rs.4,000/-per month and Rs.100/-per day as batta for his employment as a cleaner. He also claimed that he was earning Rs.6,000/-per month as a milk-vendor. He allegedly suffered permanent disability, so much so, he is unable to attend to his works. The 1st respondent, consequently, claimed compensation at Rs.10,00,000/-. 4. The 2nd respondent, owner of the lorry, remained ex partebefore the Tribunal. The appellant-insurer laid written statement putting the 1st respondent to strict proof denying all the allegations. 5. To prove the claim, the 1st respondent chose to examine P.Ws.1 and 2. Neither the owner of the lorry, who is the 2nd respondent, nor the insurer, who is the appellant, chose to examine any witnesses on their side. The 1st respondent exhibited Exs.A-1 to A-6 and C-1. 6. 5. To prove the claim, the 1st respondent chose to examine P.Ws.1 and 2. Neither the owner of the lorry, who is the 2nd respondent, nor the insurer, who is the appellant, chose to examine any witnesses on their side. The 1st respondent exhibited Exs.A-1 to A-6 and C-1. 6. The primary contention of Sri B.Naresh, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-insurer, is that the partial permanent disability as deposed by P.W.2 has not been made out and that in calculating the compensation, the income of the 1st respondent was incorrectly determined at Rs.3,000/-per month. 7. The 1st respondent deposed as P.W.1. Apart from speaking about the injuries sustained by him, he claimed that he was earning Rs.4,000/-per month as wages and Rs.100/-as batta per day as the cleaner of the lorry and that he was earning Rs.100/-per day from his milk vending business. The 1st respondent has not produced any evidence in proof of his contention regarding his income. 8. The learned Standing Counsel for the appellant contended that in the absence of contra evidence, the 1st respondent shall be considered to be drawing income in terms of the Minimum Wages Act (the M.W. Act, for short). 9. Sri V. Tulasi Reddy, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, on the other hand, pointed out that the M.W. Act prescribes minimum wages but the M.W. Act does not contemplate that wages cannot be paid over and above the wages provided under the M.W. Act. 10. It is true that the 1st respondent can certainly draw more income than the wages as provided under the provisions of the M.W. Act. The 1st respondent shall, however, prove the said income. Where the 1st respondent failed to prove the same, I agree with the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant that the wages of the 1st respondent are liable to be determined in terms of the M.W. Act. It would appear that in view of G.O.Ms.No.71, dated 13-6-1991, the minimum wages for the cleaners of public transport vehicles between 13-9-1991 and 26-7-2000 was Rs.675/-as basic pay and Rs.880/-towards D.A. Thus, the total amount that a cleaner would earn as minimum wages by the date of the accident was Rs.1,555/-per month. It would appear that in view of G.O.Ms.No.71, dated 13-6-1991, the minimum wages for the cleaners of public transport vehicles between 13-9-1991 and 26-7-2000 was Rs.675/-as basic pay and Rs.880/-towards D.A. Thus, the total amount that a cleaner would earn as minimum wages by the date of the accident was Rs.1,555/-per month. As already pointed out, where the 1st respondent did not produce any evidence that he was doing business in milk or that he was earning Rs.3,000/-per month, I deem it appropriate to limit the income of the 1st respondent to Rs.1,555/-per month. 11. The learned Standing Counsel for the appellant submitted that although Section 167 of the M.V. Act empowers a claimant to make claim for compensation either under the provisions of the M.V. Act or under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (the W.C. Act, for short), the claimant, who is a workman, is entitled to compensation under the provisions of the W.C. Act only, more so where the claimant sustained injuries while he was discharging his functions as a workman. 12. The 1st respondent contended that he was travelling in the lorry of the respondent as a cleaner at the time of the accident and that on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry, the lorry met with an accident resulting in injuries to him. Thus, the 1st respondent clearly contended that he sustained injuries while he was discharging his duties as a cleaner. The 1st respondent, consequently, is governed by the provisions of the W.C. Act. 13. Under Section 4(1)(b) of the W.C. Act, if a workman sustains permanent disability from an injury, compensation at 60% of the monthly wages of the injured worker multiplied by the relevant factor shall be awarded towards compensation. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent contended that the 1st respondent was 32 years old and that according to Schedule IV of the W.C. Act, the relevant factor is 203.85. It is the case of the 1st respondent that he was 30 years old at the time of the accident. The charge-sheet under Ex.A-2 described the 1st respondent to be 30 years old. Ex.A-3 application to examine the 1st respondent also disclosed the 1st respondent to be 30 years old. I, therefore, consider that the 1st respondent was 30 years old only at the time of the accident. The charge-sheet under Ex.A-2 described the 1st respondent to be 30 years old. Ex.A-3 application to examine the 1st respondent also disclosed the 1st respondent to be 30 years old. I, therefore, consider that the 1st respondent was 30 years old only at the time of the accident. The relevant factor for 30 years under Schedule IV is 207.98. If the monthly income of the 1st respondent at Rs.1,555/-is multiplied by the factor 207.98, the amount would be Rs.3,23,408-90 ps. However, as 60% of the same alone is to be taken into consideration in view of Section 4(1)(b) of the W.C. Act, the amount would be Rs.1,94,045-34 ps. Rounding of the same to nearest rupee would be Rs.1,94,045/-. 14. While so, the Tribunal, on the basis of the evidence of P.W.2 calculated the partial permanent disability at 50% and considering the income of the 1st respondent at Rs.3,000/-per month worked out the compensation at Rs.3,06,000/-by applying multiplier 17. Where the monthly income of the 1st respondent is liable to be calculated at Rs.1,555/-for the reasons already set out, I am not able to agree with the finding of the Tribunal that the income of the 1st respondent was Rs.3,000/-per month. As the 1st respondent was 30 years old, multiplier applicable under Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation ( 2009 ACJ 1298 ) would be 17. If the monthly income of the 1st respondent is Rs.1,555/-the annual income would be Rs.18,660/-. As this is an injuries case, no part of the income of the 1st respondent can be deducted towards his personal expenses. If the annual income of Rs.18,660/-is multiplied by 17, the amount would be Rs.3,17,220/-. 50% of the same would be Rs.1,58,610/-. The compensation worked out with reference to the provisions of the W.C. Act is at Rs.1,94,045/-. As the compensation under the provisions of the W.C. Act is more beneficial to the 1st respondent and as the 1st respondent is a workman according to his own admission, the 1st respondent shall be entitled to Rs.1,94,045/-towards compensation for partial permanent disability. 15. The 1st respondent has not produced any medical bills. The Tribunal, however, granted Rs.10,000/-towards medical expenses considering the same to be inevitable expenses. The Tribunal awarded Rs.25,000/-towards ‘pain and suffering’. I deem it appropriate not to disturb the same. 15. The 1st respondent has not produced any medical bills. The Tribunal, however, granted Rs.10,000/-towards medical expenses considering the same to be inevitable expenses. The Tribunal awarded Rs.25,000/-towards ‘pain and suffering’. I deem it appropriate not to disturb the same. However, as the 1st respondent is entitled to Rs.1,94,045/-only as compensation for partial permanent disability, the 1st respondent shall be entitled to compensation of Rs.2,29,045/-. The Tribunal awarded compensation at Rs.3,41,000/-. In view of the calculation stated by me, the amount of compensation is liable to be reduced to Rs.2,29,045/-. 16. The Tribunal awarded interest at 9% per annum. In view of Sarla Verma’s case (supra), I am afraid that the 1st respondent shall be entitled to compensation with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till deposit. 17. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed granting compensation at Rs.2,29,045/-(Rupees two lakhs, twenty nine thousand and forty five only) together with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till deposit and costs pro rata. The appellant and the 2nd respondent are jointly and severally liable to answer the claim. They shall deposit the awarded amount, if not already deposited, within one month from today. Out of the awarded amount, the 1st respondent shall be entitled to withdraw Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh only) at the first instance. The balance amount shall lie in Fixed Deposit for a period of 3 (three) years at the end of which, the 1st respondent shall be entitled to withdraw the balance together with accrued interest and costs.