TAHSIN Vs. YOGESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Nigamendra Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri V.C. Dixit, learned counsel for the New India Insurance Company and Sri Sunil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent no.3.

(2.) This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment and award dated 06.07.2006 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.4, Meerut (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C. No. 902 of 2004.

(3.) The brief facts of the ligation are accident took place between truck bearing No. HR38D-2694 and bus bearing No. U.P. 15 E9712. The claimants are the parents of the deceased who claimed to be a labourer on the said truck. The accident is not in dispute. The truck being insured by the insurance company is not in dispute, the insurance company and nor the U.P.S.R.T.C. have disputed the accident having taken place even before this court. The claimants who are the parents of the deceased had first filed the claim before the Workmen Commissioner on the stand taken by the owner that they had not engaged Taufik as a workmen, the said claim petition was dismissed. Instead of challenging the said order the claimants preferred claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Unfortunately, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal also dismissed the claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act,1988 holding that the claim petition was barred by section 167 of the Motor Vehicles 1988 (hereinafter, referred as the "Act, 1988"). The Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that though the vehicles were involved in the accident but as the Workmen Commissioner was first approached the claim petition was barred under Section 167 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.