GOMTI BAI Vs. DUSHYANT KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act has been preferred by the claimants whose application for compensation by way of a cross-claim has been rejected by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Balod, District Durg. Facts of the case, in short, are that at about 12.30 p.m. on 9.12.2004 the deceased was working in the mines at Rajhara. At that time a Tipper driven by respondent No. 2 in a rash and negligent manner dashed the deceased Shatrughan Rajput as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries and was taken to Bhilai Steel Plant Hospital, where he was declared dead. The deceased was a regular employee earning Rs. 8,025 as salary from Bhilai Steel Plant.

(2.) Admittedly, the respondent No. 3, Bhilai Steel Plant, had deposited the entire amount of compensation before the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation payable to the legal representatives of deceased Shatrughan Rajput. The respondent No. 3 deposited an amount of Rs. 2,71,120. After issuing notice the Commissioner awarded compensation of Rs. 2,70,620 which the present appellants received. In the said proceeding Dushyant Kumar, respondent No. 1, was an objector claiming to be son of the deceased, however, his claim was rejected on the ground that even accepting his plea of being a son of the deceased, he being more than 18 years of age, to be exact, being 24 years of age, on the date of accident, would not be covered within the definition of the term 'dependant' and as such he cannot be a claimant under the Workmen's Compensation Act.

(3.) Respondent No. 1 Dushyant Kumar subsequently preferred claim petition under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act. In the said claim petition the present appellants moved a cross-claim. The claim and the cross-claim have been rejected by learned Claims Tribunal by the impugned order on the ground that the claimants including the cross-claimant having preferred claim under the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, are not entitled to move under Motor Vehicles Act in view of the express bar contained under section 167 of the 1988 Act.