JUDGMENT : 1. These two appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment since M.A.C.M.A.No.2539 of 2014 filed by the National Insurance Company Limited and M.A.C.M.A.No.1134 of 2019 filed by the claimant, seeking enhancement of the compensation, are directed against the very same order and decree, dated 26.06.2013 passed in O.P.No.2256 of 2009 on the file of the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-XV Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad (for short “the Tribunal”). 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The facts, in issue, are as under: 4. The claimant filed a petition under Sections 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the respondents 1 and 2, claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident that occurred on 27.07.2009. It is stated that on the said date, while the petitioner was going to Vijayawada as Cleaner in a Lorry bearing No.AP 24 W 6127 belongs to the 1st respondent and when the said lorry was going at the outskirts of Gundrapalli Village on the national highway No.9 at a culvert turning, the driver of the said lorry drove the same in high speed without observing the front going vehicle and opposite coming lorry, as such, the driver of the said lorry suddenly applied brakes and that there were jerks in the cabin of the lorry and as a result of which, the left side door of the cabin of the lorry was unlocked and the claimant, who was the cleaner and who was sitting in the cabin, fell down from the cabin and his right leg and right hand were ran over by the rear left wheels of the lorry. The accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry. Immediately after the accident, the claimant was shifted to Medicare Hospital, L.B.Nagar, where his right leg was amputated. Thus, the claimant filed claim-petition against the respondents 1 and 2 claiming compensation for the disability sustained by him. 5. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent remained ex parte and the 2nd respondent filed counter denying the averments made in the claim-petition. It is also stated that the claimant shall prove that the driver of the Lorry was having valid driving licence at the time of accident, if not proved, the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent remained ex parte and the 2nd respondent filed counter denying the averments made in the claim-petition. It is also stated that the claimant shall prove that the driver of the Lorry was having valid driving licence at the time of accident, if not proved, the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. It is further stated that the claimant has to prove his age, income and occupation. It is also stated that the compensation claimed by the claimant is highly excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim-petition. 6. On behalf of the claimant, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A11 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence was adduced but Ex.B1 was marked. 7. After analyzing the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Lorry bearing No. AP 24 W 6127 and accordingly awarded an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- as compensation to be paid by the respondents. Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded, the present appeal is filed by the /claimant. 8. Learned Counsel for the claimant mainly submits that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on lower side. It is further submitted that as per the disability certificate the appellant had sustained 80% permanent disability, as such, the claimant is entitled to Rs.3,00,000/- under the heads of loss of expectation of life and loss of amenities in life. 9. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company would submit that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the injured was a cleaner and the alleged accident was occurred during the course of employment, the Tribunal has to pass the award by restricting as per the W.C.Act, but without doing so, erroneously passed the award, which is liable to be set aside. 10. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the Tribunal has framed Issue No.1 as to whether the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Lorry by its driver, to which the Tribunal after considering the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with the documentary evidence, has categorically observed that the accident caused due to the rash and negligent driving of Lorry by its driver and has answered in favour of the claimant and against the respondents. Further, the insurance company has not produced any evidence on record to show that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the Lorry. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Lorry. 11. In order to award compensation in case of personal injuries, the Apex Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and another, 2011 MACD (SC) 33 held as under : “5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following : Pecuniary damages (Special Damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising: (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage). (vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity). In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life. Assessment of pecuniary damages under item (i) and under item (ii)(a) do not pose much difficulty as they involve reimbursement of actuals and are easily ascertainable from the evidence. Award under the head of future medical expenses - item (iii) -depends upon specific medical evidence regarding need for further treatment and cost thereof. Assessment of non-pecuniary damages - items (iv), (v) and (vi) - involves determination of lump sum amounts with reference to circumstances such as age, nature of injury/deprivation/disability suffered by the claimant and the effect thereof on the future life of the claimant. Decision of this Court and High Courts contain necessary guidelines for award under these heads, if necessary. Assessment of non-pecuniary damages - items (iv), (v) and (vi) - involves determination of lump sum amounts with reference to circumstances such as age, nature of injury/deprivation/disability suffered by the claimant and the effect thereof on the future life of the claimant. Decision of this Court and High Courts contain necessary guidelines for award under these heads, if necessary. What usually poses some difficulty is the assessment of the loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability - item (ii)(b).” 12. In the light of the principles laid down in the aforementioned case, it is suffice to say that in determining the quantum of compensation payable to the victims of accident, who are disabled either permanently or temporarily, efforts should always be made to award adequate compensation not only for the physical injury and treatment but also for the loss of earning, inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which would have been enjoyed but for disability caused due to the accident. 13. In order to establish his case, the appellant examined himself as PW.1 and the Doctor, who treated him, as P.W.2. A perusal of Ex.A7, Disability Certificate discloses that the claimant has sustained disability at 80% as his right leg was amputated above the knee. Taking into consideration the age, income and the extent of disability sustained by the claimant, the Tribunal has rightly awarded Rs.4,89,600/- towards disability, Rs.5,000/- towards transportation, Rs.5,000/- towards attendant charges and Rs.80,200/- towards medical expenses, which needs no interference. 14. So far as loss of amenities and loss of expectation of life is concerned in Kavita v. Deepak and others, (2012) 9 SCC 604 the Apex Court held that victims of accident, who are disabled either permanently or temporarily, adequate compensation should be awarded not only for the physical injury and treatment but also for the loss of earning and inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which one would have enjoyed had it not been for the disability. The Supreme Court further held that the amount awarded under the head of loss of earning capacity is distinct and does not overlap with amount awarded for pain, suffering, loss of enjoyment of life and medical expenses. The Supreme Court further held that the amount awarded under the head of loss of earning capacity is distinct and does not overlap with amount awarded for pain, suffering, loss of enjoyment of life and medical expenses. Relying upon the decision of Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences v. Prasanth S. Dhananka, (2009) 6 SCC 1 , the Apex Court also held that “assuming the claimant’s life expectancy to be 55 years, we deem it appropriate to award a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- under the head of loss of amenities and loss of expectation of life”. 15. In the instant case, since the claimant has sustained 80% of the disability because of amputation of right leg, this Court deems it fit to award a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss of amenities and loss of expectation of life. Thus, in all the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.8,09,800/- as compensation. 16. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the Insurance company submits that the claimant claimed only a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- as compensation and the quantum of compensation which is now awarded would go beyond the claim made which is impermissible under law. 17. In Laxman @ Laxman Mourya Vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another, (2011) 10 SCC 756 , the Apex Court while referring to Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh, 2003 ACJ 12 (SC) held as under : “It is true that in the petition filed by him under Section 166 of the Act, the appellant had claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- only, but as held in Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh (2003) 2 SCC 274 , in the absence of any bar in the Act, the Tribunal and for that reason any competent Court is entitled to award higher compensation to the victim of an accident.” 18. In view of the Judgments of the Apex Court referred to above, the claimant is entitled to get more amount than what has been claimed. Further, the Motor Vehicles Act being a beneficial piece of legislation, where the interest of the claimant is a paramount consideration the Courts should always endeavour to extend the benefit to the claimants to a just and reasonable extent. 19. Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A.No.2539 of 2014 filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed and the M.A.C.M.A.No.1134 of 2019 filed by the claimant is allowed by enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.6,00,000/- to Rs.8,09,800/-. 19. Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A.No.2539 of 2014 filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed and the M.A.C.M.A.No.1134 of 2019 filed by the claimant is allowed by enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.6,00,000/- to Rs.8,09,800/-. The claimant is entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum on the total compensation from the date of petition till the date of realization. There shall be no order as to costs. 20. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these appeals shall stand closed.