THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.1832 of 1999 JUDGMENT: On account of improper handling of the case or lack of proper guidance, the appellants are denied the benefit of social welfare measures, be it under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 or the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939(for short ‘the Act’). Chandrapati Koteswara Rao, son of appellants 1 and 2, brother of appellants 3 to 7 was employed as a driver to work on a mini lorry bearing No. AP-5-T-6138. It is stated that on 24.10.1993, Koteswara Rao left Rajahmundry with the vehicle with a load of tobacco plants for unloading the same at Tangutur and when he was returning towards Rajahmundry an accident occurred at Medarametla at about 10.00 a.m. on account of collision between the vehicle driven by him and another vehicle bearing No.AS/01/A-4678 owned by the first respondent and insured with the second respondent which resulted in his death. The appellants filed O.P.No.169 of 1994 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Ongole claiming a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- under Section 166 of the Act. They have also filed O.P.No.170 of 1994 under Section 140 of the Act claiming a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards no fault liability. The first respondent remained ex parte. The O.P. was contested by the second respondent alone. They flatly denied the very existence of insurance coverage with the vehicle. The Tribunal passed order dated 23.02.1999 awarding a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- in all, as compensation, but against the first respondent alone. The appellants feel aggrieved by the order. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the second respondent and none appears for the first respondent. On behalf of the appellants, PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exs. A1 to A4 were filed. On behalf of the respondents, RW1 deposed. The Tribunal recorded a finding to the effect that the accident occurred on account of the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle bearing No. AS/01/A-4678. The said finding became final. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal took the view that the loss of contribution on account of the death of the deceased would be Rs.1,00,000/-. In addition to that a sum of Rs.25,000/- was awarded towards no fault liability. Both the amounts were awarded against the first respondent alone. A specific finding was recorded to the effect that the appellants failed to prove the existence of insurance coverage of the accident vehicle with the second respondent. Before this Court, the appellants are not able to point out that there exists a policy issued by the second respondent. The appellants ought to have taken proper care to verify the existence of the policy. Further, they could have availed the remedy under the Workmen’s Compensation Act against the owner of the vehicle, on which the deceased was employed. This court is virtually helpless in granting any relief to the appellants. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. It is, however, made clear that in case the appellants initiate proceedings under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, the period spent by them in prosecuting the litigation till the date of this order shall be excluded for the purpose of computing limitation. L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt.16.12.2011 lvl THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.1832 of 1999 Dt.16.12.2011