( 1 ) THIS CMA is filed by United India Insurance Company Limited (for short ( the Insurance Company ) questioning the order and decree passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Adilabad (for short the Claims Tribunal ).

( 2 ) THE respondents 1 to 5-claimants laid a claim before the Claims Tribunal under Section 166 (17) (c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the MV Act ), claiming compensation of Rs. 2. 50 lakhs on account of the death of one K. Anand, who is the husband of the 1st claimant, father of the 2nd claimant, brother of the 3rd claimant and son of claimants 4 and 5.

( 3 ) THE facts leading to the filing of the claim are as follows:

( 4 ) THE deceased namely K. Anand is the driver of the lorry bearing No. AP-25-T-1452. On 5-2-1995, while on his way from Nagpur to Nizamabad, and on reaching Chincholi village X Road, he lost control over the lorry and rammed into an oncoming lorry bearing No. ATJ 407 (hereinafter referred to as the opposite lorry ). The deceased sustained multiple injuries all over his body, and while undergoing treatment at Government Hospital, Nirmal, he succumbed to injuries on the same day.

( 5 ) BEFORE the Claims Tribunal, the owner of the lorry was arrayed as 1st respondent and the appellant, which insured the vehicle of respondent No. 1 was arrayed as 2nd respondent. The insurance company filed counter denying the averments made in the claim petition. It took two pleas-Firstly, that the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of driver and owner of the opposite lorry, and the Insurance Company, which insured the opposite lorry, as parties to the claim petition, and secondly, that the claimants have to make the claim before the Commissioner under the Workmen s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short the WC Act ). On behalf of the claimants PWs. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs. A1 to A5 were got marked through PW1. The 1st respondent remained ex parte. The Insurance Company neither examined any witness nor got marked any documents in support of their case.

( 6 ) THE Claims Tribunal on perusal of the evidence and the material on record, though held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased, determined and awarded a sum of Rs. 2. 59 lakhs as compensation to the claimants. Assailing the validity of the said order and decree passed by the Claims Tribunal, the present appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company.

( 7 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company contended that the Claims Tribunal was not justified in awarding compensation under the MV Act having recorded a finding that the deceased himself is responsible for the accident. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondents-claimants contended that under Section 167 of the MV Act, the claimants have option either to move the Claims Tribunal or the Commissioner under the WC Act, seeking compensation.

( 8 ) IN the instant case, the accident in question occurred due to the negligence on the part of the deceased. There is no negligence attributed to the driver of the opposite lorry. The finding that the deceased himself was responsible for the accident was not challenged by the respondents-claimants. The foundation for laying a claim under Section 166 of the MV Act is based on a tort, which flows from wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the person who is liable to pay compensation either independently or vicariously. But the facts of the present case would disclose that the owner is neither vicariously nor independently responsible for the accident. In this context, a reference to Section 1-A of the Indian Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 may be made, which states that the claimant has to show wrongful act, neglect or default on the person, who is liable to pay compensation. In the instant case also unless the insured is made liable to pay compensation under the provisions of the MV Act, the insurer as indemnifier is not liable to pay compensation