The dependants of a driver are entitled to compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act even if the driver was negligent, given the employment relationship and statutory coverage by insurance.

JUDGMENT

Saral Srivastava, J.

Heard learned counsel for the claimants/appellants and Sri Radhey Shyam, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The present appeal has been preferred by the claimants/appellant against the award dated 18.03.2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.8, Etawah whereby he has rejected the claim petition of the claimants/appellants.

3. One Subhash Chandra was driver on the Truck No.D.L-1-GB0979 and on the instruction of his employer, he was taking the truck and while in order to save someone, he lost control over the truck and truck overturned. In the said accident, Subhash Chandra came under the truck and suffered injuries and died. The dependants of Subhash Chandra instituted the claim petition under Section 163A of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT .

4. The Tribunal framed several issues. However, on the issue of occurrence of accident, Tribunal returned a finding in favour of claimants/appellants. The Tribunal found that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of deceased-driver, therefore, Tribunal did not award any compensation to the claimants/appellants.

5. On the issue of driving licence and the insurance policy, Tribunal found that the deceased was having a valid driving licence at the time of accident and offending vehicle was duly insured on the date of the accident.

6. Challenging the award, learned counsel for the claimants/appellants has contended that it is not in dispute that deceased was employed as driver on offending truck, and accident had occurred during the course of employment. It is contended that it is the choice of the claimants to claim compensation in case of death of driver either in the court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal or before the Commissioner under the Workmen Compensation Act. It is further submitted that in the present case, claimants/appellants preferred claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, and therefore, the question of negligence is not to be seen in view of the fact that driver of the truck is statutorily covered under the insurance policy, and once it is established that deceased was employed as driver on the truck and had died during the course of employment due to the injuries suffered by him in the accident, the compensation cannot be denied to the claimants/appellants. Thus, it is contended that Tribunal has erroneously held that since the deceased himself was negligent in the accident, therefore, claimants/appellants are not entitled to compensation.

7. It is further contended that in view of the fact that the driving licence of the driver of the truck was valid and further offending vehicle was insured with the insurance company, therefore, the liability to pay compensation is upon the insurance company, and this Court may not remand the matter for quantification of compensation rather this Court being an Appellate Court can determine the quantification of compensation.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would contend that it is not in dispute that deceased was driving the truck and truck overturned and deceased came under the truck and on account of the injuries suffered by him in the accident, he died. It is submitted that the accident was the result of sole negligence of deceased-driver and in such view of the fact, the Tribunal has rightly held that since the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of deceased himself, therefore, claimants/appellants cannot be compensated for the negli