PUPPALA NAGA MALLESWARA KUMARI Vs. M RAMBABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants/claimants are dependants of the deceased Venkateswara Rao who was driver of lorry bearing No.AP 16 X 6788 belonging to the 1st respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent/insurance company. THE deceased died on 15.10.2005 at about 5.00 A.M near Pudur Railway Gate, Vaniyambadi of Vellore of Tamilnadu State. As the railway gate was closed, the deceased stopped his lorry and thereafter suffered sudden chest pain and collapsed. THE deceased died of sudden heart attack. Ex.A-3 Post Mortem certificate of the deceased disclosed that he died of myocardial infraction (Heart Attack). In those circumstances, the claimants approached the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam and filed M.V.O.P.No.8 of 2006 claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- for death of the deceased under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (in short, the Act). THE lower Tribunal negatived the appellants' claim for compensation on the ground that they failed to show that death of the deceased resulted from an accident arising out of use of a motor vehicle.

(2.) THE above facts in this case are not in dispute. THEre is also no dispute that Ex.A-5 insurance policy issued by the 2nd respondent for the lorry covered risk relating to the driver. It is contended by the appellants' counsel that in a claim under Section 163-A of the Act, proof of negligence resulting in the accident causing death of the deceased is not necessary as distinguished from a claim under Section 166 of the Act. It is further contended that as the deceased died during the course of his employment as driver of the insured lorry, the insurer as well as the insured are liable to pay compensation for death of the deceased. It is also contended that under Section 167 of the Act, the claimants are entitled to choose either of the fora under the Motor Vehicles Act and the Workmen's Compensation Act to claim compensation for death of the deceased.

(3.) IN Skandia INsurance Co. Ltd. V. Kokilaben Chandravadan, AIR 1987 SC 1184, while considering Section 94 of the old Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 the Supreme Court observed: