RAVANNA Vs. PITAMBAR LAL SAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -THE claimants, who are wife, daughter and son of late Chinna rao, have preferred this appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, being aggrieved by the award dated 6. 8. 96 passed by Third Additional Motor accidents Claims Tribunal, Bastar at Jagdalpur in Claim Case No. 46 of 1995 whereby the learned Tribunal even though assessed loss of dependency to the tune of Rs. 1,68,000 amongst other compensation under the heads of loss of consortium, love and affection, shock and mental agony to the tune of Rs. 10,000, Rs. 4,000 and Rs. 2,000 respectively and held that they are entitled for compensation of Rs. 1,84,000 in all, along with 12 per cent interest per annum from the date of filing of claim petition, but dismissed the petition of the claimants on the ground that the Claims Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition. The claimants ought to have filed the petition under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 before the Commissioner for Workmen's compensation. The facts, in brief, necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that on 13. 9. 1993 chinna Rao was working as a driver on vehicle No. MBY 8513. On that day, in the night, when his vehicle reached Lohandi-guda near village Bandaji, while returning from Michanar Market to Jagdalpur, all of a sudden balance of the vehicle was disturbed, the vehicle turned turtle towards the right side and dashed against a tree standing by the side of the road, as a result of which he sustained injuries and died instantaneously. It was mentioned that the said accident took place on account of mechanical failure of the steering wheel. The matter was reported in the Police station, Lohandiguda where Crime No. 132 of 1993 was registered.

(2.) THE claim petition was resisted by oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. , respondent no. 2. They denied the manner in which the accident is alleged to have taken place. Even it is denied that late Chinna Rao died in motor accident. Even income of Chinna rao to the tune of Rs. 1,200 per month was denied. Respondent No. 3, however, filed a reply accepting the manner in which the accident took place. It was further mentioned that late Chinna Rao was getting rs. 1,200 per month. He used to get daily allowance as and when he used to take the vehicle outside. He used to earn Rs. 14,400 per year.

(3.) AFTER framing of the issues, parties were allowed to lead evidence and after hearing learned counsel for the respective parties learned Tribunal passed impugned award as aforesaid.