LANKA SARALA DEVI Vs. KADIALA SUBBAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1st claimant -wife, 2 and 3 claimants -minor son and minor daughter, 4th claimant -father and 5th claimant -mother -in -law of the deceased (added as guardian of 2nd and 3rd claimants since 1st claimant died pending petition) who is not dependent on the deceased but for her grandchildren, who filed the claim in M.V.O.P. No. 1035 of 2000 on the file of the learned Chairman of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum -IV Additional District Judge, Guntur (for short, 'Tribunal') against the owner and insurer of the tipper bearing No. AP7 U 3345 for death of Sri Joyababu no other than the driver of the said tipper of the 1st respondent while proceeding with load of proclainer bocate, for repairs along with the cleaner of the vehicle, due to his negligence while driving the vehicle which went extreme right side of the road margin and the vehicle turtled and he was crushed under the cabin of the tipper and lastly breathed, instantly due to the head injury covered by Ex. A.1 FIR Ex. A.4 PM report, Ex. A.3 final report from his death being driver, for no other accused; preferred the claim instead of mentioning Section 167 of the M.V. Act from the option available thereunder either to proceed under the Workmen's Compensation Act before the Workmen's Compensation Tribunal or before the tribunal under the M.V. Act, option provided therein, by wrongly quoted the provision as if under Section 141 (not applicable but for interim measure under Section 140, on showing that no bar to the final claim other than under Section 163 -(A)); Section 149 (a general provision once policy covered the risk, for the insurer to indemnify the third party or those entitled under the policy) and Section 166 of the M.V. Act and the tribunal awarded only compensation of Rs. 50,000/ - with interest at 6% p.a. of no fault liability sum under Section 140 from quoting of Section 141. It is thus impugning the same, the claimants preferred the appeal.

(2.) IT is important to note that among the chapters 10 to 12 of the M.V. Act, in Chapter 10 the provision under Section 140 provided for interim compensation of no fault liability sum of Rs. 50,000/ - and that is not a bar to the final claim under Section 166 of the Act; subject to deduction of what was awarded under Section 140, as laid down under Section 141. Section 141 speaks the right to claim compensation under Section 140 in respect of death or permanent disability shall be in addition to other right under Section 166 or the like, except the right to claim in the claim preferred under Section 163(A) of the Act. Thus, the contention is that the claim ought to have been taken under Section 166 of the Act, with any interim claim under Section 140 of the Act, but went wrong by the tribunal without deciding the final claim by giving final disposal with the interim claim.

(3.) PERUSED the material on record. The parties hereinafter are referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience in the appeal.