( 1 ) IN this appeal, an important question as to the interpretation of Section 166 of Motor vehicles Act arises for consideration.

( 2 ) BEFORE delving into the legal aspects, it is necessary to refer to the facts leading to the filing of the appeal.

( 3 ) ONE Mr. Addala Narayana Murthy raju was employed as driver on the bus belonging to the 1st respondent herein namely Smt. G. Subhadramma. On 7-4-1996 at about 9-45 p. m, while the bus was plying from Sarika to Vizianagaram, it turned turtile at Zonnalavalasa Railway Gate and in the said accident Addala Narayana murthy Raju died while on duty. Therefore, l. Rs. laid a claim for compensation under section 164 and 166 of Motor Vehicles Act.

( 4 ) THE tribunal recorded a finding that the deceased Murthy had died due to his own rash and negligent driving of the bus and the tribunal, however, assessed the compensation at Rs. 63,000/- and awarded the same against the owner as well as the insurer by an Order dated 30-4-1997 passed in O. P. No. 247 of 1996 on the file of the motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- district Judge, Visakhapatnam. Challenging the said Order and not satisfied with the compensation awarded, the appeal has been filed by the claimants.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants-claimants submit that the very purpose of engrafting of Section 167 of motor Vehicles Act is to confer option to the claimants either to approach the tribunal or the Commissioner for Workmen compensation. He further submits that admittedly the deceased was driver employed by the owner of the bus and therefore, he is covered by the provisions of the Workmen Compensation Act. Instead of approaching the Workmen Compensation authorities, he approached the tribunal for claiming compensation and thus his claim is saved by Section 167 of the Act and hence, the Order of the tribunal awarding compensation under no fault liability is illegal. The learned counsel would submit that the tribunal ought to have awarded compensation payable under Workmen compensation Act.

( 6 ) THE learned Standing Counsel for the insurance Company on the other hand, basically submits that the claim as filed by the L. Rs. of the deceased employee is not maintainable and that the claimants ought to have approached the authorities constituted under the provisions of the workmen Compensation Act by claiming compensation under the aforesaid Act, even though the option is given either to file a claim application before the claims tribunal or before the Commissioner for workmen Compensation, but yet, the type of claim that has made before the claims tribunal is not maintainable.

( 7 ) THE learned counsel would also submit that for claiming compensation in respect of the accidents that arose on account of the use of the motor vehicle establishing the negligence on the part of the driver is sine qua non. In the instant case, the driver himself was found to be negligent in driving the vehicle and therefore, the L. Rs. are disentitled to claim the compensation under the provisions of the Act and that the claims Tribunal cannot be vested with the provisions of the workmen Compensation Act and award the same. He further submits that the award itself is not sustainable as the application by the L. Rs. of the driver are not entitled to maintain an application for compensation under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act. However, since no appeal was filed by the insurance Company, he submits that no grounds have been made for enhancement of the compensation.

( 8 ) THE learned Standing Counsel for the insurance Company relied on several judgments which will be referred to hereinafter.

( 9 ) THE tribunal after holding that the driver was negligent in driving the bus which resulted in the death of the driver allowed the compensation payable under no fault liability for a sum of Rs. 50,000/ -. Apart from that, the tribunal allowed further sum of Rs. 3,000/- towards the funeral expenses and a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards the loss of Consorti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document