1. The question involved in this appeal is whether the right to make an application for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can be waived by the injured.

2. The first respondent, M.K. Asharaf, met with an accident on 16.3.1995. While he was walking along the side of the road, a road roller, driven by the second respondent and owned by the appellant (the Project Officer, District Rural Development Agency, Civil Station, Kakkanad) hit on the injured. It was alleged that the road roller was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal found so. The injured claimed a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs as compensation.

3. The driver of the vehicle remained ex-parte. The appellant contended that a sum of Rs. 25,000/- was paid, as evidenced by Ext. B 1, at the time when the injured was admitted in the hospital. Later, another sum of Rs. 25,000/- was paid to the injured in full and final settlement of all the claims. It was therefore contended by the appellant that the injured was not entitled to make any claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

4. The third respondent Insurance Company contended that the vehicle was not insured at the relevant time and, therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable. This contention was accepted by the Tribunal.

5. The contention that the application is barred in view of acceptance of Rs. 50,000/- was negatived by the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the injured is entitled to get a sum of Rs. 90,650/- as compensation and after deducting Rs. 50,000/- paid to him, he is entitled to realise the balance amount of Rs. 40,650/- as compensation together with interest at 9% per annum from the date of application.

6. The injured was admitted in the hospital from 16.3.1995 to 20.5.1995 and thereafter from 14.4.1998 to 20.5.1998. He had sustained serious injuries and he had to undergo surgery. The injured was a registered head load worker, as spoken to by the Assistant Labour Officer. The injured contended that he was earning a monthly income of Rs. 3,000/-. However, the Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the injured at Rs. 1,500/-. The evidence shows that the injured had sustained disability to the tune of 10%. Taking into account the various factors, the Tribunal fixed a total sum of Rs. 90,650/- as compensation. The amount awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable. In fact, no contention is raised in the Memorandum of Appeal that the amount awarded is excessive.

7. Learned Government Pleader contended that going by Exts. B1 and B2, it is clear that Rs. 50,000/- was paid in full and final settlement of all the claims of the injured. In Ext. B1, Rs. 25,000/- was fixed and it was received by the injured towards the compensation and for future treatment expenses. Thereafter, another sum of Rs. 25,000/- was paid, probably because the medical expenses exceeded the anticipated figure and the injured had to remain in the hospital for quite long. The question is whether the right of an injured to claim compensation can be waived by him by accepting some amount offered by the person liable to pay the compensation.

8. Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides for submitting an application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of Section 165. Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act states that the State Government may, constitute Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals for the purpose of adjudicating upon claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of, or bodily injury to, persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles or damages to any property of a third party so arising, or both. Section 167 of the Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, where the death of, or bodily injury to, any person gives rise to a claim for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act and also under the Workmen's Compensation Act. the person entitled to compensa