NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. M VENKATESWARAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the Insurance Company against the Judgment, dated 29.07.1998 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Nellore in O.P. No. 532 of 1992.

(2.) The National Insurance Company Limited, Ongole, which was the third Respondent before the Tribunal below is the Appellant herein. The Respondents claiming to be the legal representatives of the deceased Veera Prakash, who died in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 14.03.1992 filed a claim petition before the Tribunal below seeking compensation of Rs. 1,75,000/-. The learned Tribunal after making an enquiry into the claim petition, partly allowed it, granting compensation of Rs. 1,07,000/- with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, which award is impugned in this appeal.

(3.) The Appellant-insurance company challenges the award on the ground that earlier there was an order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Eluru in W.C. No. 172 of 1992 awarding compensation of Rs. 74,066/- holding the Respondents 4 and 5 to pay compensation and directing the 5th Respondent-insurance company to deposit the amount in favour of the applicants therein, who claimed to be the legal representatives i.e. wife and children of the deceased and the Commissioner therein ruled that the applicants before him are the legal representatives of the deceased and finally awarded compensation in their favour by his order dated 29.05.1995 in W.C. No. 172 of 1992. The Appellant's contention seems to be that as per Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the legal representatives of the deceased are entitled to claim compensation either under the Workmen's Compensation Act or under the Motor Vehicles Act, but not under both and therefore, the claim petition filed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum II Additional District Judge, Nellore is not maintainable. Thus according to the Appellant, the Tribunal ought to have dismissed O.P. No. 532 of 1992 filed before it under the Motor Vehicles Act.