The Motor Vehicles Act provides an option to claimants to seek compensation either under the Motor Vehicles Act or the Workmens Compensation Act, but not both.

( 1 ) THESE first appeals from orders arise out of a claim petition filed under the Motor Vehicles Act before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

( 2 ) IN F. A. F. O. No. 484 of 1975, the appellants are the Oriental Fire and General Insurance company Limited and Ashok Kumar Fathak, the owner of the vehicle, which was involved in the accident and the claimants are the respondents, while in F. A. F. O. No. 21 of 1976, the claimants are the appellants and the owner of the vehicle, Ashok Kumar Pathak, and the Oriental fire and General Insurance Company Limited with whom the vehicle was insured, are the respondents.

( 3 ) THE Claims Tribunal had decreed the claim petition in the sum of Rs. 25,600 and directed that the claimants would be entitled to pendente lite and future interest at the rate of six per cent per annum on the amount decreed in their favour.

( 4 ) THE claimants in their appeal have urged that the amount of compensation awarded is inadequate while in the appeal by Ashok Kumar Pathak and the Insurance Company it is asserted that in the first place the claim petition should have been dismissed on the ground that the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver was not established and secondly that even if the claim petition is to be decided in favour of the claimants, the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is excessive.

( 5 ) ADMITTEDLY, an accident took place on 11-7-1973 at about 6-30 A. M. in which truck No. MPA 6253 belonging to Ashok Kumar Pathak was involved. In the accident Prem Narain Dubey aged about 22 years who was a cleaner-cum-driver of the vehicle, was killed.

( 6 ) THE case of the claimants was that the accident occurred because of the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle which was backed in a rash and negligent manner as a result of which the truck overturned and crushed Prem Narain Dubey. The claimants claimed Rs. 50,000 as the compensation.

( 7 ) THE owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company filed separate written statement though their plea was similar. They alleged that the accident occurred not on account of the negligence of the driver of the truck but due to negligence of the cleaner. It was further claimed that the claim was excessive and the Insurance Company further pleaded that the forum in which the claim petition should have been filed, was under the Workmens Compensation Act before the commissioner under that Act and the claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was not maintainable.

( 8 ) IN order to prove the circumstances in which the accident occurred, the claimants produced bachai P. W. 2 who was an eye-witness of the accident. He deposed that the accident took place in his village Bhatai. He further stated that the wood belonging to Sunder was laden on the truck and the truck was being taken to the wood-shop of Sunder where Sunder sold his wood. He stated that the truck had first stepped and Prem Narain Dubey got down from the truck and was helping the driver in backing. The driver backed too fast and the truck came on the Kachcha patri and its wheel sank and that truck overturned. The wood laden on the truck fell on Prem narain Dubey who died as a result thereof. The witness is a natural witness and he belongs to the village. Nothing has been suggested in his cross-examination as to why he should depose against the owner of the vehicle and in favour of the claimants.

( 9 ) IT is necessary to add here that the accident took place on 11-7-1973 on Jangi Road, also called mirzapur Road, in front of Swadeshi Cotton Mills, Naini, Allahabad. July being the month in which we have rains, the statement of the witness that the wheel sank in Kachcha Patri while the vehicle was being reversed, appears to be a correct version of the facts.

( 10 ) THERE is no counter-version on behalf of the owner of the vehicle or the Insurance Company. The driver of the vehicle was not produced. No other witness had also been