THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A. (SR) No.68411 of 2002 JUDGMENT: Respondents 1 and 2 filed O.P.No.48 of 1999 before the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I Additional District Judge), Nalgonda (for short ‘the Tribunal) claiming a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, as compensation. It was pleaded that their son, by name Bommagani Veeraiah, was engaged as a labourer on a rig-mounted vehicle bearing No. AP 11B 3471, owned by the third respondent and insured with the appellant and while on duty in the State of Bihar on the said vehicle, he died on account of fall of a hammer of the drill unit upon him. According to them, the accident occurred on account of negligence on the part of the driver. The wages of the deceased were pleaded to be at Rs.2,500/- per month and that he was aged 27 years as on the date of death. The third respondent remained ex parte. The O.P. was opposed by the appellant alone. They denied the liability on the ground that the incident cannot be treated as a motor accident. Through its order, dated 30.04.2002, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,46,000/- and apportioned the same between respondents 1 and 2. Hence, this appeal. Sri N.V.Jagannath, the learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the death of the deceased occurred at a time when the vehicle was stationed and it cannot be treated as a motor accident. He further submits that the Tribunal was not justified in taking the wages of the deceased at Rs.700/- per month and the age as 27 years. Though respondents 1 and 2 are served with notice, they have not chosen to enter appearance. On behalf of respondents 1 and 2, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A3 were filed. Ex.A1 is the certified copy of the F.I.R. in Crime No.6096 of 1997 in Chass Police Station of State of Bihar. Ex.A2 is the death certificate and Ex.A3 is the xerox copy of the policy. No evidence was adduced by the appellant. It is not necessary that the vehicle should have been in motion to treat the incident leading to the death, as an accident. The deceased was very much employed to work upon the vehicle and it is covered with the insurance policy. Even assuming that there is any possibility of the incident being not treated as a motor accident, the compensation is payable under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. In case the minimum wages at the relevant point of time, namely Rs.150/- per month are applied, the compensation payable to respondents 1 and 2 would be Rs.1,61,177/-. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,46,000/-. Viewed from any angle, the order does not warrant interference. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:17.09.2009 kdl