A workman who suffers a motor accident in the course of his employment, as a result of the tortious act of a third party and he has not opted to get compensation from his employer under the Workmen's Compensation Act and instead has opted to claim damages from the tortfeasor under the Motor Vehicles Act, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is found to follow the principles that underline such claims and fix the liability.

JUDGMENT :- The owner of the vehicle and his insurer, against whom the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has passed an Award, apportioning the liability as between them, have filed the present appeal, challenging their liability to pay compensation.

2. Facts briefly are: The deceased Umapathy was employed as a Truck Driver in the tractor bearing Registration No. TNM 7005 belonging to the first appellant and insured with the second appellant. On 25-7-1980 while the deceased was driving the tractor on the Madras Bangalore Road, a bus bearing Registration No. TMN 8068 belonging to the second respondent, being driven in a rash and (negligent) manner by its driver, dashed against the tractor, which over-turned on the road. The deceased Umapathy sustained serious injuries and succumbed to them later. The first respondent, who is the father of the deceased Umapathy, filed M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 96 of 1981 under S.110A

of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Principal Subordinate Judge), Vellore claiming a total Compensation of Rs. 35,000/-.

3. Lakshmipathy, who was driving the bus at the time of the accident, was arrayed as the first respondent before the Tribunal and was later exonerated. The appellants resisted the claim contending that the accident was due only to the rash and negligent driving of the bus belonging to the second respondent by its driver and that, therefore, it was only the second respondent who would be liable to pay compensation to the first respondent. The claim was also challenged as excessive. The second respondent resisted the claim contending t hat the accident was due only to the careless driving of the tractor by the deceased and that, therefore, the second respondent was not liable to pay any damages to the first respondent. The claim was also excessive.

4. Before the Tribunal, the first respondent examined himself as P.W. 1 and examined one Chinnapaiyan, an eye witness to the occurrence, as P.W. 2, Exts.A1 to A6 were marked on his side. On behalf of the second respondent, his driver Lakshmipathi was examined as R.W.1 and on behalf of the first appellant, Ex.B.1, a copy of the policy of insurance relating to the tractor was marked.

5. On the above evidence, the Tribunal found that the accident was due solely to the rash and negligent driving of the bus belonging to the second respondent by its driver, R.W. 1. The Tribunal assessed the total compensation at Rs. 19,200/-. Holding that though the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the second respondent's bus, since the deceased was an employee under the first appellant and the accident had occurred out of and in the course of his employment, the first appellant was bound to indemnify the deceased at least to the extent of his liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act and his insurer, the second appellant herein, was also bound to indemnify the deceased, passed an Award directing the second appellant to pay Rs. 16,800/- on the basis of Schedule IV of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1923 and directing the second respondent herein to pay the remaining sum of Rs. 2,400/-. Challenging their liability to pay compensation, the appellants have preferred this appeal.

6. The first respondent in the appeal, who was the claimant before the Tribunal, has preferred memorandum of cross-objections contending that the amount of compensation awarded is grossly inadequate, and requires enhancement.

7. Thiru N. Rosi Naidu, learned counsel for the appellants, contended that this being a claim under the Act, which arises out of a tortious liability, the Tribunal having found that the accident was due solely to the rash and negligent driving of the bus belonging to the second respondent, ought not to have held the appellants liable to pay compensation on the basis of the liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The Tribunal had imported into the claim petitions under the Act, t