Claimants entitled for interest from the date of accident.

P. SATHASIVAM, J.

Aggrieved by the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kallakurichi dated 12-12-2000 made in O.P.No. 171 of 1998, the Oriental Insurance Company, Pondicherry has filed the above appeal.

2. Respondents 1 and 2 herein/claimants therein have filed the said claim petition claiming a compensation of Rs.4 lakhs for the death of their son Pavulkumar alias Kumar in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 25-2-98. According to them, on 25-2-98 at about 14.00 Hours when the deceased Pavulkumar alias Kumar was driving a Tractor and Trailer bearing registration No. TAY 6838 and TCF 3683 from Sankarapuram to Moongilthuraipattu, near Ilayankanni, he fell down from the tractor and died. The claimants were fully depending upon the income of the deceased and they claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.4 lakhs. Before the Tribunal, the first claimant, father of the deceased was examined as P.W.1 and one Kalaichelvan as P.W.2, and Exs. P-1 to P-6 were marked in support of their claim. On the side of the owner and insurance company, no one was examined and no document was marked. The Tribunal on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and after holding that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent act of the driver of the tractor namely Pavulkumar and that the tractor being insured with the Oriental Insurance Company, second respondent therein/appellant herein, passed an award for Rs.3 lakhs with interest at 12 per cent from the date of petition. Against the said award, the Insurance company alone has preferred the above appeal questioning its liability.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as respondents 1 and 2.

4. Mr. M.S. Krishnan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, by drawing our attention to the specific finding of the Tribunal that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor and trailer, and that he alone was responsible for the accident, contended that the Tribunal has committed an error in passing the award in favour of the claimants. In other words, according to him, the deceased being a tort-feasor, his legal heirs are not entitled to compensation. In any event, according to him, since the driver of the tractor died in the course of his employment, the proper remedy for the claimants is to approach the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation and the claim petition filed under Section 166 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Kallakurichi is not maintainable. It is his further contention that if this Court is inclined to pass an award under Workmen's Compensation Act, interest need not be awarded. On the other hand, Mr. R. Muralidharan, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2/claimants, would contend that in view of Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, inasmuch as the death occurred by using the motor vehicle, notwithstanding anything contained in the Workmen's Compensation Act, the claimants are entitled to compensation under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. He also contended that even if it is accepted that the proper course is to file a claim under the Workmen Compensation Act, this Court has ample jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders even under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, and in that event, award may be passed with interest from the date of the accident.

5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions.

6. It is seen from the materials that in respect of death of Pavulkumar alias Kumar, his parents have prayed for a compensation of Rs.4 lakhs under Section 166 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. By pointing out para 23 of the claim petition, learned counsel for the appellant Insurance company raised his contention that since the deceased fell down from the moving tractor and died, while he was driving the same from Sankarapuram to Moongilthuraipattu, neither himself nor any one could claim compensation for his own wrong. In other words