( 1 ) M. P. State Road Transport Corporation, the appellant in this case, has preferred this appeal under S. 110-D, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short; hereinafter called 'the Act') against the award and decree passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Shivpuri for short, hereinafter called 'the Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 39 of 1969 dated 11-5-1974.

( 2 ) THE facts of the accident are not very much disputed. The short facts are that Santosh Bihari, the son of respondent 1, was at the time of the fatal accident in the service of the State of Madhya Pradesh as Sub-Inspector of Excise, and was getting a salary of Rs. 215/-per month. From Guna he boarded the ill-fated bus belonging to the appellant. The findings of the Claims Tribunal, which have not seriously been disputed by the appellant, are that the deceased boarded Ujjain-Gwalior Bus No. M. P. G. 3547 at Guna. It was being driven by a driver employed by the appellant-Corporation. From the opposite direction two trucks were coming. The first truck brushed this bus of the Corporation and the following truck dashed headlong with the bus injuring the deceased seriously, resulting in his instantaneous death on the spot. The Claims Tribunal has rightly found that the bus of the appellant was being driven rashly and negligently and the Corporation is liable to pay the claim. The (Claim) has been awarded at Rs. 20,000/- though respondents 1 to 8 had prayed for a compensation for Rs. one lac.

( 3 ) SHRI V. G. Khot, learned counsel for the appellant, has contended that according to S. 14, Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, the brothers of the deceased, i. e. , respondents 2 to 8 are not entitled to receive any compensation. The relevant part of this provision is reproduced below:"every such action or suit shall be for the benefit of the wife, husband, parent and child, if any, of the person whose death shall have been so caused. "thus, the stand taken by Shri Khot seems to be tenable in view of this provision. It may be mentioned at the outset that respondents 2 to 8 are neither the dependants of the deceased as mentioned in S. 1a, Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, nor the legal representatives of the deceased under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Respondent 1 alone, who is the unfortunate father of the deceased, is dependant under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, and is also the legal representative in accordance with S. 8 clause (1) of the Schedule to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. It is respondent 1 who could have maintained the action for recovery of the damages under Ss. 1a and 2, Fatal Accidents Act, 1855. This view of mine gets a direct support from a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Rameshchandra v. M. P. S. R. T. C, 1983 Acc CJ 221 and also the case of Budha Heer, 1981 MPLJ 30.

( 4 ) SHRI M. M. Kaushik, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 1 to 8, has seriously contended that even the brothers, i. e. , respondents 2 to 8, have also a right to receive the claim for the death of their brother. In support of his contention he has cited the case of M. A. Rahim, 1972 Acc CJ 470. This is also a Division Bench judgment of the Madras High Court. According to this judgment, "the provisions of Ss. 110 to 110-A of the Act purport to consolidate and amend the law relating to claims arising out of the motor accidents. These provisions are self-contained and exhaustive. There is no warrant for literally importing the provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act into S. 110-B, Motor Vehicles Act, so as to read both the provisions as part and parcel of the provisions. " Thus, the Madras High Court's view is in direct conflict with the view of the Division Bench of this Court. I shall prefer to follow the Division Bench judgment of this Court, and I refuse to follow the law laid down by the Madras High Court. I, therefore, hold that only respondent 1 Pahlad Bihari, the father of the deceased was a proper claimant before the Claims Tribunal and not hi