( 1. ) THIS is an appeal by the claimant (dependent mother) of an employee suffering a fatal accident by being run over by a motor truck while in the employment of the defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 who run a touring cinema. The order appealed from is that of the Workmens Compensation Commissioner who has rejected the claim for compensation under the Workmens Compensation Act on the ground that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal had already granted to the claimant compensation of Rs. 3,600-00 and she would not be entitled to compensation twice over.

( 2. ) THE facts of the case are simple and are common grounds. The deceased workman was a cleaner in a truck owned by there employers? respondents Nos. 1. 2 and 3 (respondent No. 4 being the insurance company ). The boy met with a fatal accident while working in that capacity. There is, therefore, no doubt that the employer would be liable to pay compensation both under the Workmens Compensation Act and under the Motor Vehicles Act. At the first instance the mother dependent went to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. It held the employers liable. In arriving at the figure the Tribunal applied the formula given in the Schedule t