HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.2186 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed by the appellant/petitioner against the order in O.P.No.278 of 1996 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-I Additional District Judge, Ongole, where-under for the injuries said to have been received by the petitioner in a motor accident, a claim was made originally for Rs.70,000/- and thereafter amended for Rs.2,00,000/- and the Tribunal has dismissed the claim. 2. According to the case of the petitioner, he was working as a driver of the lorry belonging to the 1st respondent bearing No.AP 27 T 1854. On 14.02.1996 when he was proceeding with the lorry and reached near Subbarajupally village of Adilabad District, the bus bearing No.AP 9Z 3187 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the lorry, as a result of which, the petitioner sustained multiple injuries. The petitioner, therefore, claimed compensation. The 1st respondent, who is owner of the lorry, remained ex parte and the 2nd respondent-Insurance company filed counter denying the nature of incident and liability and the incident was happened only due to the fault of the driver of the bus and the petitioner was travelling as gratuitous passenger and therefore, there is no liability. The 3rd respondent, which is RTC filed a counter, denying the allegations of rashness and negligence attributed to the driver of the bus. On consideration of the material on record, the lower Tribunal came to the conclusion that the petitioner sustained injuries being in employment of the 1st respondent as a driver. But, however, without deciding the issue as the claim should have been filed under the Workmen’s Compensation Act before the Commissioner, dismissed the same. 3. In this connection, it is useful to refer to the decision reported in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sowmya and others[1], wherein it was held that the claim cannot be dismissed and there is an option for the claimant either to approach the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal or the Commissioner. Unfortunately, the material on record does not show as to the particulars of the Compensation arrived at by the lower Tribunal. But, as can be seen from the Judgment of the lower Tribunal, the petitioner is said to have sustained head injury and also sustained a fracture on the right side of the shoulder and multiple injuries and he was treated in a private hospital at Singarayakonda for about six months. He was also in-patient for five days. Therefore, taking into consideration the above facts, I feel the ends of justice would meet if a compensation of Rs.25,000/- is granted. Since the vehicle is said to be insured with the 2nd respondent, the amount shall be paid by respondents Nos.1 and 2 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. The claim against the 3rd respondent is not maintainable. Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A. is allowed in part granting compensation of Rs.25,000/- against respondents Nos.1 and 2 only. The claim against respondent No.3 is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO Date:21.09.2011 INL [1] 2005 ACJ 546