JUDGMENT : (V.R.K. KRUPA SAGAR, J.) 1. MACMA.No.3174 of 2012 under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is filed by the appellant/ insurance company impugning the order dated 04.07.2011 of the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – Cum – Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram in MOP.No.139 of 2008. 2. MACMA.No.1932 of 2016 under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is filed by the appellant/claimant impugning the order dated 04.07.2011 of the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – Cum – Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram in in MOP.No.139 of 2008. 3. Heard arguments of Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, the learned counsel for insurance company and Sri Srinivasa Rao Kurapati, the learned counsel appeared on behalf of Sri N.Siva Reddy, the learned counsel for claimant. 4. The following facts are required to be noticed: A lorry bearing registration No. AP 29 7227 is a special type vehicle containing machinery for Drilling and boring the wells. On 16.04.2007, It was traveling from Ravada Village and when it reached near China Ravada Village, it was about 10.30 am, it went into a pit because of rash or negligent driving of its driver. Sri Routhu Appalanaidu who was in the said vehicle fell on the ground and sustained several injuries. At Bhogapuram Police Station, Cr.No.48 of 2007 was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle as per Ex.A1/FIR. After due investigation, a charge sheet/ Ex.A3 was filed against the driver of the offending vehicle. The Motor Vehicles Inspector examined this vehicle and certified that the accident was not out of any mechanical defects as evidenced by Ex.A4. The owner of the vehicle had already obtained a comprehensive insurance policy/Ex.B1. The injured claiming himself to be cleaner – cum - helper on this offending vehicle filed MOP.No.139 of 2008 under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 praying for compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. The driver of the offending vehicle was R1, the owner was R2 and the insurer was R3. Before the claims tribunal, the driver did not choose to appear and contest. The owner filed a counter pleading that the injured claimant has been a helper – cum - cleaner working on the offending vehicle and that the insurance policy obtained was a comprehensive insurance policy and it was in force at the material point of time and therefore liability, if any, should be shouldered by the insurance company. The owner filed a counter pleading that the injured claimant has been a helper – cum - cleaner working on the offending vehicle and that the insurance policy obtained was a comprehensive insurance policy and it was in force at the material point of time and therefore liability, if any, should be shouldered by the insurance company. Insurance company filed its counter stating that the claimant was a gratuitous passenger. The owner did not pay any additional premium to cover the risk of the claimant. It prayed for exonerating it from liability. Learned claims tribunal settled the following issues for trial. 1. Whether the pleaded accident occurred resulting in injuries to the petitioner due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle (lorry) bearing No.AP 29 7227 by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation and if so, at what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents? 3. To what relief? 5. The claimant testified as PW.1 and the doctor who conducted surgeries and treated him testified as PWs.2 and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked. There was evidence of RWs.1 and 2 and Exs.B1 and B2. 6. After detailed analysis of the evidence on record, the learned claims tribunal concluded that the claimant sustained injuries because of rash or negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. The driver being the tortfeasor was held liable and the owner was held liable vicariously. It found that by virtue of Ex.B1, there was in force, the insurance policy at the material point of time. With reference to liability of the insurance company, it held that by virtue of the law laid down by a learned Judge of this court in New India Assurance Company Limited V. Pujala Chenchu Nagaiah , [2010 SCC Online AP 744] , the insurance company was liable to shoulder the responsibility. Under various heads, it considered the amounts of compensation and granted them as mentioned below. Amount in Rs. 1. Compensation for transport to hospital, medicines and Extra nourishment 30,000/- 2. Compensation for pain and suffering 10,000/- 3. Compensation for loss of earnings 10,000/- 4. Compensation for loss of amenities of life, Enjoyment of life, prospectus of life and Longevity of life 70,000/- Total Compensation Amount 1,20,000/- 7. Amount in Rs. 1. Compensation for transport to hospital, medicines and Extra nourishment 30,000/- 2. Compensation for pain and suffering 10,000/- 3. Compensation for loss of earnings 10,000/- 4. Compensation for loss of amenities of life, Enjoyment of life, prospectus of life and Longevity of life 70,000/- Total Compensation Amount 1,20,000/- 7. It passed the award in the following terms: In the result, the petition is allowed in part with proportionate costs awarding a sum of Rs.1.20.000/- (Three One Lakh and twenty thousand only) to the petitioner with interest @ 7.5% simple from the date of petition fill the date of realization, recoverable by the petitioner from respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally. Out of the total amount awarded, he is permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees Sixty thousand only) with accrued interest and costs and the balance amount of Rs. 60.000/-(Rupees Sixty thousand only) shall be invested in fixed deposit in his name in State Bank of India, Cantonment Branch, Vizianagaram for a period of 2 years. The petitioner is permitted to withdraw the quarterly interest accrued on the said deposit. Time for deposit is one month. 8. Aggrieved by the above award, the insurance company preferred MACMA.No.3174 of 2012 contending that by virtue of IMT 28/Ex.B2, the insurance policy/ Ex.B1 cannot be invoked since the policy does not cover risk of any employee. Therefore, the claimant should be treated as gratuitous passenger and at any rate, his claim for injuries cannot be indemnified but the claims tribunal erroneously passed the impugned award. Therefore, the learned counsel seeks to upset the impugned award. 9. Aggrieved by the impugned award, the injured claimant preferred MACMA.No.1932 of 2016 contending that despite best evidence being produced, the learned claims tribunal failed to appreciate it in proper terms and granted meager amounts under various heads and prays the court to enhance the compensation and grant what was claimed. 10. The following points fall for consideration: 1. Whether the impugned award incorrectly fastened the liability on the insurance company requiring interference? 2. Whether the impugned award failed to grant just compensation requiring interference in this appeal? POINT No.1 11. From the material on record, the undisputed fact is that the injured claimant was employed by the owner/ insured of the offending vehicle as cleaner – cum – helper. 2. Whether the impugned award failed to grant just compensation requiring interference in this appeal? POINT No.1 11. From the material on record, the undisputed fact is that the injured claimant was employed by the owner/ insured of the offending vehicle as cleaner – cum – helper. The further undisputed fact is that the vehicle along with the injured claimant went to Jonnada fields on 15.04.2007 and dug two bore wells in Jonnada fields at Rawada village and was returning on 16.04.2007 on which day this unfortunate incident occurred. The offending vehicle was covered by Ex.B1 insurance policy. It is undisputed that no additional premium was paid to cover the risk of employees of the vehicle. That Ex.B1 is a comprehensive insurance policy. On the ground that additional premium was not paid to cover the employees of the vehicle, insurance company contends that liability cannot be fastened to it. After due consideration of the submission, the following aspects are to be recorded. The proviso to Section 147(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act provides that the authorized representative suffering bodily injury while the insured vehicle was in use is covered and no separate policy is required to be taken. In the case at hand, the claimant injured while in his employment as cleaner- cum – helper suffered the bodily injuries. Therefore, the requirement of payment of additional premium is obviated. That was the ratio of this court which is referred in the impugned award. Therefore, the opinion held by the claims tribunal is within the bounds of law requiring no interference. Hence, this point is answered accordingly. Point No.2 12. By the time of this accident, the injured was aged 35 years. He was a coolie earning Rs. 3000/- per month. The evidence of PW.2/doctor and the evidence of PW.1/ claimant clearly disclosed that he suffered fracture on his left leg as well as right leg and foot and also sustained some other injuries on his body. Surgery was conducted and nails were inserted. The evidence further proved that the injured took treatment for about 6 weeks and availed bed rest for about another 6 weeks. He was treated at Sai Super Specialty, Vizianagaram. He produced Ex.A7 case sheet from the hospital and also produced his X-ray report/ Ex. A6. The money he spent at the hospital was sustained by production of Ex.A8/ medical bills which disclosed that he spent Rs.37,400/-. He was treated at Sai Super Specialty, Vizianagaram. He produced Ex.A7 case sheet from the hospital and also produced his X-ray report/ Ex. A6. The money he spent at the hospital was sustained by production of Ex.A8/ medical bills which disclosed that he spent Rs.37,400/-. There was no evidence contrary to it brought on record by the insurance company. The claimant had undergone treatment for about six weeks and all of that was not as inpatient. For some part of it, he was inpatient and for the remaining he took treatment as outpatient. That would show that he made multiple visits to hospitals and must have spent a lot of money towards transportation. To recover his health, he required a special diet for extra nourishment. Ex.A8 medical bills show that the claimant incurred an expenditure of Rs.37,400/- towards actual medical expenses. 13. These facts were considered by the claims tribunal but it granted only Rs.30,000/-. That is assailed in this appeal. There is merit in the criticism leveled against the award. 14. After considering the material on record and the submissions made this court finds that for transportation, Rs.7,000/-, for extra nourishment, Rs.8,000/- and Rs.37,400/- towards actual medical expenses are appropriate. Thus, under these three heads, he is entitled for Rs.52,400/-. Learned claims tribunal granted only Rs.30,000/-. Therefore, an additional amount of Rs. 22,400/- is granted. 15. Since Nails were inserted to his broken bones, he required further amounts to meet future medical needs. Claims tribunal failed to grant anything towards it. Therefore, Rs. 10,000/- is hereby granted towards future medical expenses. 16. PW.2 stated that claimant suffered 40% disability. Learned counsel for claimant argued that towards this disability nothing was granted though the claimant suffered loss of earning capacity. Having considered this submission and examined it in the light of the evidence made available before the claims tribunal, this court is unable to sustain the contention. PW.2 is only a private medical practitioner. Disability certificates are to be issued by medical boards. Claimant being a cleaner cum helper had to demonstrate as to in which way he lost his earning capacity. Towards functional disability, whether that resulted in loss of earning capacity alone requires attention and the claims tribunal rightly analyzed these facts and refused to grant anything towards loss of earning capacity. Disability certificates are to be issued by medical boards. Claimant being a cleaner cum helper had to demonstrate as to in which way he lost his earning capacity. Towards functional disability, whether that resulted in loss of earning capacity alone requires attention and the claims tribunal rightly analyzed these facts and refused to grant anything towards loss of earning capacity. It is to be stated that claims tribunal was alive to the realities in life and recorded that by the nature of the injuries sustained and the troubles the claimant will have to experience in his life, it awarded Rs.70,000/- towards loss of amenities. The argument of the learned counsel to enhance it cannot be sustained since what was granted is found to be adequate. 17. In the result, MACMA.No.3174 of 2012 is dismissed. MACMA.No.1932 of 2016 is allowed enhancing the compensation awarded in the impugned award dated 04.07.2011 of the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – Cum – Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram in MOP.No.139 of 2008 from Rs.1,20,000/- to Rs.1,52,400/- with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in MACMA.No.1932 of 2016 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Respondent No.3/ The New India Assurance Company Limited is directed to deposit the amount within 30 days before the claims tribunal after giving due credit to amounts, if any, deposited already. There shall be no order as to costs in both the appeals. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall stand closed.