HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO.1740 OF 2002 Dated: 23.04.2010 BETWEEN: Dilshad Begum and another .. Appellants And K.Pedda Veerabhadrudu and others .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO.1740 OF 2002 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the claimants challenging the award, dated 02.07.2001 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (II Additional Chief Judge), Kurnool in M.V.O.P.No.392 of 1999. 2. The appellants, who are the legal representatives of the deceased Shaik Khaja Hussain filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- on account of the death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 01.11.1998 wherein the lorry bearing No.AP 21 U 5459 and the RTC bus bearing No. AP 10Z 5143 were involved. All these facts are not in dispute. 3. The learned Tribunal after making an enquiry into the award granted an amount of Rs.1,78,100/- as compensation to the claimants and fixed the liability on the drivers of both the vehicles at 50% each i.e. both the drivers are at fault. The Tribunal further held that since the driver and the cleaner of the lorry are workmen under the first respondent, they have to make the claim under the Workmen’s Compensation Act and Motor Accident claims Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition. Accordingly directed the second respondent-APSRTC to pay 50% of the compensation amount and declined to fix any liability on the respondents 1 and 2, who are the owner and insurance company relating to lorry bearing No. AP 21 U 5459. There is no dispute regarding the quantum of compensation. 4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent- insurance company. 5. The appeal is filed only challenging the finding of the learned Tribunal that the driver and cleaner, who are workmen in the lorry and they have to pursue the remedy under Workmen’s Compensation Act, but not before the Tribunal constituted under Motor Vehicles Act. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that in C.M.A.No.1757 of 2002 preferred by the driver, the learned Single Judge of this Court by his order dated 07.08.2007 held that under Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition and accordingly allowed the appeal. Since the issue involved in the present appeal is covered by the decision rendered by the learned single Judge in the above C.M.A., this appeal is disposed in terms thereof. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellants is allowed. The first respondent – owner of the lorry bearing No. AP 21 U 5459, the second respondent – insurance company with which the said vehicle was validly insured on the date of accident are jointly and severally liable to pay 50% of the total compensation to the appellants together with interest which was awarded by the Tribunal below. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ R.KANTHA RAO,J Dated: 23.04.2010 Kvrm HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO.1740 OF 2002 Dated: 23.04.2010