The main legal point established in the judgment is that Ss. 110 to 110f of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 confer substantive rights on the parties seeking remedies and override the general provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 in determining compensation for fatal accidents involving motor vehicles.

( 1 ) THIS appeal arises out of the judgment and award of the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Dharwar, in Misc. (M. V. C.) No. 22 of 1975 awarding a sum of Rs. 6,000 as compensation to the claimants therein. The appellant in this appeal is the General Manager, Karnata,ka State Road transport Corporation,. There is also cross-objections by the claimants, who are respondents 1 and 2 herein, claiming enhanced compensation.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case are not in dispute and may be briefly stated as follows; On 8-10-1974- at about 4-45 p. m, the vehicle bearing registration no. MYF 4176 belonging to the appellant and driven by the appellant's driver, i. e. , the third respondent herein, caused the death of the deceased laxman Parasappa Sangolli, as a result of the rash and negligent driving of the driver. Respondents 1 and 2, who are the brother and the sister of the deceased, claimed damages amounting to Rs. 25,500 from the appellant and respondent No. 3. The appellant resisted the claim contending, inter alia, that the accident was not due to the rash and negligent act of his driver and the deceased only was responsible for his death on account of his contributory negligence.

( 3 ) THE claims Tribunal disbelieved the case put up by the appellant and found the appellant's driver guilty of rash and negligent act on the basis of the evidence of an eye-witness, PW-4.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant has not seriously challenged the finding of the Claims Tribunal on this point but his grievance is that a sum of Rs. 6,000 awarded by the Claims Tribunal for the loss to the estate of the deceased is on the excessive side regard being had to the fact that the deceased was earning Rs. 6 per day.

( 5 ) WE will consider this case at a later stage after we deal with the cross-objections of respondents 1 and 2 since the cross objections raise an important question of law for our determination.

( 6 ) THE Claims Tribunal, though it found the driver guilty of actionable negligence, did not a,ward any general damages to the claimants on the ground that they did not fall within the category of the dependants under S. 1a of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, (hereinafter referred to as the 1855 Act' ). Hence it confined its award to the grant of Rs, 6,000 for loss to the estate of the deceased, and awarded the said sum to the claimants, who are brother and sister as stated earlier, in the absence of nearer relations. It held that succession opens by personal law and in the absence of nearer relatives, the brother and the sister become the legal, heirs.

( 7 ) MR. Hiremath, learned, counsel for the cross-objectors, maintained that the finding of the Claims Tribunal that the brother and the sister of the deceased a,re not entitled to claim compensation for loss of dependency is untenable regard being had to the, language of S. 110b of motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred, to as the, 1939 Act')- In support of his case, he relied on the latest decision of the Gujarat High court in M. K. Vira v. C. Taljabhai (1977 ACJ. 253 (Guj.) ). In the said case, the claimants were the brothers of the deceased, During the pendency of the claim- application claimant No. 1, i. e. , the first brother, passed away without leaving any issues. The other brother pre-deceased, the first brother leaving behind two sons. These two sons of the second brother were the legal representatives of the first brother also. They continued the proceedings for claiming compensation for the loss caused by the death of their uncle. The contention raissd before the Court on behalf of the claimants was that a Claims Tribunal inquiring into claims for compensation in, respect of fatal accidents arising out of the use of a motor vehicle must apply the law contained in Ss. 110 to 110f of the 1939 Act since the said, provisions provide a complete code for determining compensation for actionable negligence arising out of the use of motor vehicles as also for the determ