JUDGMENT : These two appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment since M.A.C.M.A.No.1584 of 2017 filed by the New India Assurance Company Limited and M.A.C.M.A.No.2458 of 2017 filed by the claimant, are directed against the very same order and decree, dated 19.01.2017 made in M.V.O.P.No.1322 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short “the Tribunal”). 2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter the parties will be referred to as per their array before the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the claimant has filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1994, claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 04.12.2011. According to the claimant, on 04.12.2011 at about 3:00 p.m., while he, along with his wife, was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing No.AP 20 J 4133 from Kukatpally to L.B.Nagar and when they reached near old Police Control Room, Saifabad, Hyderabad, one Tata Indica Car bearing No.AP 9 BM-0781, owned by respondent No.1 and insured with respondent No.2, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed the motorcycle of the claimant. As a result, the claimant and his wife fell down on the road and received multiple grievous injuries. Immediately, the claimant was shifted to Deccan Hospital, Somajiguda, Hyderabad and from there he was shifted to E.S.I. Hospital, Hyderabad. It is the further case of the claimant that he was aged about 39 years as on the date of the accident and he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month working as Argon welder in GEE PEE Electro Spark Private Limited, Kukatpally and due to the injuries sustained by him, he is unable to sit, squat or to stand, thereby he lost his earning capacity. Therefore, he laid the claim against the respondents seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- under different heads. 4. Before the Tribunal, while respondent No.1 remained ex parte, respondent No.2-Insurance Company has filed counter denying all the averments in the claim-petition including the manner in which the accident took place, age, avocation, earning capacity of the claimant, medical expenditure incurred. It is the specific contention of the Insurance Company that the claim-petition is not maintainable under Section 51 of the E.S.I. Act as the claimant covers under E.S.I. Act. It is the specific contention of the Insurance Company that the claim-petition is not maintainable under Section 51 of the E.S.I. Act as the claimant covers under E.S.I. Act. It is further contended that the compensation claimed is highly excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 5. Considering the averments in the claim petition and the counter and both the oral and documentary evidence brought on record, the Tribunal has allowed the O.P. in part awarding compensation of Rs.6,96,500/- with costs and interest at 8% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization payable by both the respondents. Challenging the same, the present appeals came to be filed by the Insurance Company and the claimant respectively. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the claimant, learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company. Perused the material available on record. 7. The only contention advanced by the learned counsel for the claimant (appellant in MACMA No. 2458 of 2017) is that the Tribunal erred in not awarding future prospects as the claimant has suffered 30% permanent disability. Therefore, he prayed to enhance the compensation by allowing the appeal. 8. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company (appellant in MACMA No. 1584 of 2017) has contended that the claimant has taken treatment under E.S.I. Scheme without any expenditure from his pocket and he was applied leave for the period of 04.12.2011 to 25.07.2012 and that the Tribunal failed to consider the fact that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction under Section 53 of the E.S.I. Act to award any compensation. It is further contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on very high side without proper calculation and computed the quantum on imaginary grounds, therefore, the same is liable to be reduced. It is further contended that the interest granted by the Tribunal @ 8% is excessive. He also submits that as held by the Apex Court in several decisions, interest should not be more than @ 7.5% per annum. 9. It is further contended that the interest granted by the Tribunal @ 8% is excessive. He also submits that as held by the Apex Court in several decisions, interest should not be more than @ 7.5% per annum. 9. A perusal of the impugned order discloses that the Tribunal having framed Issue No.1 as to whether the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Tata Indica Car bearing No.AP 09 BM 0781, causing injuries to the claimant, and having considered the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with the documentary evidence, has categorically observed that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tata Indica Car bearing No.AP 09 BM 0781 and has answered the issue in favour of the claimant and against the respondents. 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 the offending vehicle, Tata Indica Car. 10. The learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company (appellant in MACMA No.1584 of 2017) referring to section 53 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short, ‘ESI Act’) contends that even according to the claimant, as he is covered by the provisions of ESI Act, he shall not be entitled to receive or recover any compensation or damages under any other law and that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition in view of bar to jurisdiction under Section 53 of the Act. In support of the said contention, reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Hamida Khatoon & Ors., (2009) 13 SCC 361 , in which, the Apex Court remanded the matter to the High Court, to reconsider the issue as to whether there was a bar under section 53 ESI Act for granting compensation under any statute. The relevant portion of the order reads as under:- "12. When considered in the background of statutory provisions, noted above, the payment or non-payment of contributions and action or non-action prior to or subsequent to the date of accident is really inconsequential. The deceased employee was clearly an "insured person", as defined in the Act. The relevant portion of the order reads as under:- "12. When considered in the background of statutory provisions, noted above, the payment or non-payment of contributions and action or non-action prior to or subsequent to the date of accident is really inconsequential. The deceased employee was clearly an "insured person", as defined in the Act. As the deceased employee has suffered an employment injury as defined under Section 2(8) of the Act and there is no dispute that he was in employment of the employer, by operation of Section 53 of the Act, proceedings under the Compensation Act were excluded statutorily. The High Court was not justified in holding otherwise. We find that the Corporation has filed an affidavit indicating that the benefits under the Act shall be extended to the persons entitled under the Act. The benefits shall be worked out by the Corporation and shall be extended to the eligible persons." 11. In this regard, it is relevant to mention that merely because an employee has been granted benefits under ESI Act would not mean that he cannot claim compensation under Motor Vehicles Act. The two provisions i.e., Employees State Insurance Act and the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act qua the entitlement of the benefits of the injured/dependents of the deceased cannot be mixed up. For, under the ESI Act, the insured or his dependents are entitled only to the compensation or benefits as specified by the provisions of the Act or the Rules or the Scheme framed thereunder. Whereas, the claimants under the Motor Vehicles Act are entitled to compensation of the total loss actually caused or proved by them to have been caused on account of injuries/death of the injured/deceased. Hence, the nature of the degree of the benefits under the ESI Act and the Motor Vehicles Act are altogether different. Furthermore, the ESI Act is a social beneficial legislation. Therefore, the provisions of this Act should not be construed/interpreted in a manner as to restrict the other benefits available to the insured on account of injury occurring outside employment of the insured. At best, Section 53 of the ESI Act can be interpreted to restrict the other ‘statutory compensation’ available to the employee in his capacity as an employee or his dependents under any other statutory labour law which may have some common cover in relation to the injuries sustained by the insured. At best, Section 53 of the ESI Act can be interpreted to restrict the other ‘statutory compensation’ available to the employee in his capacity as an employee or his dependents under any other statutory labour law which may have some common cover in relation to the injuries sustained by the insured. Further, a perusal of provisions of Section 167 of the Motor Vehicle Act shows that the legislature never considered the compensation available under ESI Act to be comparable to or in exclusion of the compensation available under Motor Vehicles Act. This Section has made a compensation available under Workmen’s Compensation Act as an alternate to compensation available under Motor Vehicles Act duly prescribing that a person can claim compensation under either of these two Acts and not under both these Acts, of course, this alternative is also applicable to a person in his capacity as a workman or an employee under the Workman’s Compensation Act and when claiming compensation from his employer. However, the benefits available under the ESI Act have not been raised to the level of alternate compensation by the legislature. Hence, any compensation paid under ESI Act would not be an alternative to the compensation payable under Motor Vehicles Act as these provisions would be two different and independent remedies available to a person. Therefore, the decision relied upon by the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company does not support the case of the appellant. Hence, the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition in view of bar to jurisdiction under Section 53 of the Act lacks merit and the same is rightly rejected by the Tribunal. 12. As regards the quantum of compensation, the Apex Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and another, 2011 MACD 33 (SC) 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. (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. What usually poses some difficulty is the assessment of the loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability -item (ii)(b).” 13. In 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 earnings, inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which would have been enjoyed but for disability caused due to the accident. 14. 14. A perusal of the material on record reveals that, in order to substantiate his claim that he has sustained 30% permanent disability, the claimant has produced Ex.A5, disability certificate issued by the Medical Board, Gandhi Hospital. 15. As regard the income of the claimant, considering the evidence of P.W.4 coupled with Ex.A6, salary certificate, the Tribunal has rightly taken the income of the claimant at Rs.10,796/- per month. In Jagdish v. Mohan and others, (2018) 4 SCC 571 , the Apex Court held that the benefit of future prospects should not be confined only to those who have a permanent job and should be extended to self-employed individuals as well. In the case of a self-employed person, an addition of 40% of the established income should be made where the age of the victim at the time of the accident was below 40 years. As per the decision of the Apex Court in Jagdish (supra), the claimant is entitled for additional 40% on the income towards future prospects. If the same is applied, the income of the claimant comes to Rs.15,114/- (Rs.10,796/- + Rs.4,318/- being 40% thereof). The claimant was aged 39 years at the time of accident and the relevant multiplier applicable is 15'. Thus, under the head of loss of income due to disability, the claimant is awarded a sum of Rs.8,16,156/- (Rs.15,114/- x 12 x 15 x 30/100). The other amounts awarded by the Tribunal for the injuries, pain and suffering, medical expenses, loss of earnings during the treatment, transportation and extra nourishment are reasonable and therefore, the same are not interfered with. Thus, in all, the claimant is entitled for the compensation of Rs.9,29,632/- which is rounded off to Rs.9,29,635/-. 16. At this stage, the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance company submits that the claimant claimed only a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation and the quantum of compensation which is now awarded would go beyond the claim made which is impermissible under law. 17. In view of the Judgments of the Apex Court in Laxman @ Laxman Mourya Vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another, (2011) 10 SCC 756 and Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh, 2003 ACJ 12 (SC) the claimant is entitled to get just compensation even if it is more than the amount what was claimed by the claimant. 18. 17. In view of the Judgments of the Apex Court in Laxman @ Laxman Mourya Vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another, (2011) 10 SCC 756 and Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh, 2003 ACJ 12 (SC) the claimant is entitled to get just compensation even if it is more than the amount what was claimed by the claimant. 18. Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A.No.1584 of 2017 filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed and M.A.C.M.A.No.2458 of 2017 filed by the claimant is allowed. The compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced from Rs.6,96,500/- to Rs.9,29,635/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the O.P. till the date of realization. Respondents are directed to deposit the said amount within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire compensation amount. However, the claimant is directed to pay deficit Court Fee on the enhanced amount. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.