JUDGMENT :

Varghese Kalliath, J.

Respondents in appeal are the widow and children of one Hamsa and his mother. A baleful this illfettered drive of a motor vehicle by Hamsa resulted in a tragic accident, ended Hamsa drop dead though reached in hospital and rendered the respondents destitutes. Respondents claimed compensation in M.V.O.P. No. 845 of 1985. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,50,750/-. The award is challenged in this appeal by the owner of the vehicle, the insured and the insurer jointly.

2. The facts are not very seriously disputed. But for the purpose of the questions raised in this appeal, we shall give a short resume of the facts of the case.

3. The calamitous event happened at about 2 p.m. on 14.8.1982. Deceased Hamsa was driving the illfated lorry KLO 5123. Due to mechanical failure, the lorry capsized. It fell into a nearby paddy field. Hamsa was caught up underneath the lorry. After extricating him from under the lorry, he was taken to the hospital. It was found that Hamsa had several injuries. He died at about 3.45 p.m. at the Government Hospital, Punalur.

4. The second appellant is the owner of the lorry. First appellant is the insurer of the lorry. The lorry was covered by the insurance policy. In these circumstances, respondents herein, the widow and children and mother of the deceased Hamsa, filed an application u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'the Act'). There is no dispute as to the fact that the deceased Hamsa was the driver of the lorry.

5. The second appellant, the owner, contended that the amount claimed is exorbitant and that the insurance company is liable to pay if any amount is awarded as compensation. The first appellant contended that the petition before the Tribunal is not maintainable. It admitted the fact that the vehicle was insured but contended that the respondents are under an obligation to prove that the accident happened in the course of employment. It was also contended that the claim amount is exorbitant.

6. Before us several interesting questions of law were raised by counsel for appellants. Both the counsel appearing for appellants and respondents argued the case ably and elaborately. Counsel for the respondents submitted that at any rate, even if all the adverse points of law raised against the respondents are sustainable, they are entitled under the Workmen's Compensation Act an amount of Rs. 83,192/- with interest and that the insurance company is liable to make that payment. It is not seriously contended that the insurance company has the liability to make payment under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. Counsel for the respondents submitted a statement showing the calculation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. We asked counsel for appellants whether they are prepared to pay compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. We gave time to the appellant's counsel to ascertain whether the insurer appellant is prepared to pay the amount under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Counsel took enough time and submitted a memo stating that counsel could not contact the officer of the insurance company and that he is not in a position to state the correctness of the amount shown in the memo submitted by respondents' counsel, since he did not get a copy of the same. Anyhow, we only record that on this aspect we did not get real assistance. We leave the matter there.

7. Counsel for appellants submitted before us that the application before the Tribunal is not maintainable and that the Tribunal ought to have dismissed the application holding that it is not maintainable. He expanded his argument and submitted that the widow, children and mother of the deceased driver of the vehicle cannot maintain an application u/s 110-A of the Act. The reason highlighted by counsel is that deceased Hamsa was the driver of lorry and as such, the legal representatives cannot file an application. Further, it was contended that Hamsa was an employee of the owner and his legal represen