( 1 ) THE Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, the appellant herein, questions the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 21-7-1994 partly allowing C. M. A. No. 384 of 1988 preferred by the Respondents 1 to 6 herein/ claimants against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Ongole in O. P. No. 261 of 1984 dated 27-2-1986.

( 2 ) THE claimants are the legal representatives of the deceased Shaik Kalesha. He died in an accident that occurred on 2-5-1984 about 10 am. while driving a bus bearing registration No. AAZ 3464 belonging to the appellant-Corporation. It was a head on collision between that bus and a lorry beating registration No. MDY 8883 coming from the opposite direction resulting in the deaths also of three other persons including the driver and cleaner of the lorry. Shaik Kalesha was 30 years old when he died and was employed as driver in the appellant-Corporation drawing a salary of more than Rs. 600. 00 per month. He left behind his seventh month pregnant wife aged 23 years, 3 minor daughters aged 4 years, 2 years and 6 months, mother aged 45 years and unmarried sister aged 19 years, who sought compensation totalling Rs. 60,000. 00 for his death in O. P. No. 261 of 1984 under Section 110a and 92a of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 ( the M. V. Act for short ).

( 3 ) THE claims Tribunal found that the accident involving head on collision between the bus and the lorry occurred due to the negligence of the drivers of both the vehicles in equal proportion and consequently apportioned in equal parts the compensation of Rs. 54,000. 00 towards loss of earnings and Rs,4,000/- towards loss of consortium to the widow awarded by him. On that basis the Claims Tribunal held that the claimants would be entitled to only half of Rs. 58,000. 00 from the owner of the lorry and its insurer, Respondents 7 and 8 in the L. P. A/respondents 2 and 3 in the C. M. A. and in the O. P. respectively. On the finding that the deceased Shaik Kalesha was himself equally negligent in causing the accident, the Claims Tribunal held that no compensation could be awarded to his legal representatives against the appellant because there could be no vicarious liability of the appellant-Corporation, the owner of the bus, in that regard.

( 4 ) THE learned single Judge rejected the claim of the appellants before him (claimants) for enhancing compensation. He also upheld the decision of the Claims Tribunal denying 50 per cent of the compensation awarded on the ground that the deceased himself was negligent to the extent of 50 per cent and therefore no compensation could be awarded to his legal representatives in respect of his own wrong. But, relying on the judgment of a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in K. R. Visalakshi v. Pookodan Hamaza, 1989 ACJ 600 = AJR19s9 Kerala 192 the learned single Judge held that from a reading of the provisions of the M. V. Act it was clear that there was no prohibition for applying the principles under the Workmen s Compensation Act, 1923 ( the W. C. Act for short) if such benefit could be given in the case of a particular workman under the W. C. Act and that therefore the Claims Tribunal could award compensation to which the claimants would be entitled under the W. C. Act subject to the rider that the compensation should not be more than that payable by the employer under the W. C. Act. On that basis the learned single Judge held that the appellant-Corporation had to share the liability as the owner of the bus AAZ 3464 in its capacity as employer as per the provisions of the W. C. Act and that it would be in the interests of justice and equity to limit the liability of the appellant-Corporation to the extent of the balance amount of Rs. 29,000. 00 awarded by the Claims Tribunal. In arriving at this conclusion, the learned single Judge took into consideration the fact that Section 3 of the W. C. Act disentitled the workman to receive any compensation under the W. C. Ac

Click Here to Read the rest of this document