1. This is an insurer's appeal.

2. On 01.07.1996, Jesu Michael went as a driver in the lorry belonging to 6th respondent. The vehicle has been insured with the appellant. On that day, a road accident took place. The Lorry and a Crane dashed against each other. In this accident, the said lorry driver died. His dependants claimed compensation in M.C.O.P.No.1210 of 1999, before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Tiruchy.

3. The F.I.R. has been registered against the Crane driver (Ex.P.1). After investigation, the Crane driver was charge sheeted (Ex.R.4), He also admitted his guilt and paid the fine (See Ex.R.3). In the circumstances, the Tribunal held that the Crane driver was guilty of negligence. However, it had considered the matter under Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 and granted compensation to the claimants applying the principles relating to determination of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and ultimately awarded the entire Rs.1,60,800/- with 9% interest p.a. and directed the 6th respondent and the appellant to pay the said amount.

4. The learned counsel for the insurance company/appellant would contend that the Tribunal recorded a categorical finding that the accident was caused by the negligence of the Crane driver. No imputation or allegation has been made as against the lorry driver. In such circumstances, the Tribunal calling upon the Insurer of the lorry owner to pay the compensation and applying the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act will not arise. Even if the matter is considered under the Workmen Compensation Act, there is a separate quasi judicial authority namely Commissioner under Workmen Compensation Act, the Tribunal ought to have referred the matter to the said Commissioner. Thus, the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to award compensation to the claimants in this case.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the proceedings under the Workmen Compensation Act and the Motor Vehicles Acre distinct. They differ in their salient features. One cannot be mixed with other.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants would contend that the Tribunal had adopted an innovative method. Instead of following the routine pattern, namely, dismissing the petition, the Tribunal wanted to do justice, in the circumstances, it had considered the claim petition as a W.C. case. Even if we calculate the compensation under the W.C. Act, the compensation will be Rs.14,000/- more. So, what was awarded is less.

7. The learned counsel for the claimants would also submit that the Tribunal has to render justice. In appropriate cases, if compensation could not be given under the Motor Vehicles Act but it is possible and feasible under W.C. Act, it can give compensation under the W.C. Act. Further to do so, the Tribunal need not refer the matter to the quasi judicial authority under the Workmen Compensation. Parties should not be driven to dilatory practice. In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner cited The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kaliya Pillai 2002 (4) CTC 469).

8. The learned counsel for the claimants submitted that Rs.14,000/- is left out and interest has to be increased. Even without filing an appeal or cross appeal, that can be claimed in this appeal itself. In this connection the learned counsel for the claimants cited APSRTC & anr. v. M.Ramadevi & ors. (2008(1) TN MAC 234 (SC)).

9. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions and perused the materials on record, the impugned award and the decisions cited.

10. There is a distinction between the claims preferred under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as M.V. Act) and claims preferred under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred as W.C. Act). M.V. Act among others things introduced a scheme of compulsory Insurance. It is intended to help the third parties. When a decree is passed against a vehicle owner, to satisfy the decree the responsibly to pa