JUDGMENT
B.S.A. Swamy, J.
1. Aggrieved by the order and decree dated 5th December, 2001 in A.A.O. No. 2577 of 1999 passed by a learned Single Judge, the present appeal is filed.
2. The only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether a driver due to whose negligence the accident has taken place can claim compensation under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act or whether he has to approach the Commissioner under Workmen’s Compensation Act.”
3. The facts of the case are that the appellants in the L.P.A. are the legal heirs of one K. Anand, who died in a road accident while driving a lorry bearing registration No. AP-25-T-1452 while proceeding to Nizamabad to Nagpur at about 6-15 a.m. on 5.2.1995. The specific case of the appellants herein is that the deceased driver was unable to control the lorry, dashed lorry bearing No. ATJ-407 coming from the opposite direction, and as a result of which the deceased received multiple injuries on his body and died in the Government hospital, Nirmal on the same day at about 9.00 a.m. They filed claim petition on 23.1.1996 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming about Rs. 2,50,000/-on various counts with 18% interest per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realisation. We need not go into the details of the order passed by the Tribunal. Suffice it to notice that the Tribunal have noticed that the accident has taken place due to the negligence of the deceased driver, arrived at the compensation payable to the appellants at Rs. 2,59,000/- and restricted their claim to the amount they claimed in the claim petition by applying Table-II of the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Act. Section 163-A was introduced by an Amending Act 54 of 1994 and the same came into force on 14.11.1994. It is useful to extract Section 163-A of the Act.
‘163A. Special provisions as to payment of compensation on a structured formula basis :–(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or instrument having the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle of the authorised insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be.
Explanation :–For the purposes of this subsection, permanent disability’ shall have the same meaning and extent as in the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923.
(2) In any claim for compensation under Subsection (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person.
(3) The Central Government may, keeping in view the cost of living by notification in the Official Gazette, from time to time amend the Second Schedule.”
4. From this it is seen that though the claimants have to prove that the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver before claiming any compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, the burden of proving that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver of the vehicle is no longer pre-requisite for claiming compensation. It would be suffice to claim compensation to prove that the vehicle was involved in the accident. In fact Sub-section (2) of Section 163-A makes it clear that the claimant is not required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person and under Sub-section (3) the compensation payable in case of fatal accidents as well as death were given. As per this Schedule in respect of a person who died between 40 to 45 years in the Motor Vehicle Accident, the multiplier to be applied is 15 for the annual income that is being earned by the deceased employee. As per that table the dependants i.e., claimants are entitled to Rs. 2,52,000/- and under note to the table, l/3rd of the amount payable as compensation has to be deducted towards maintenance of the deceased himself, had he been alive. At the time of his death the deceased driver was drawing salary of Rs. 1,800/- per month and he is aged about 40 years. After deducting 1/3rd, the compensation that is payable comes to Rs.1,200/- though the Tribunal did not specifically advert that it is awarding compensation under Section 163-A, the order clearly indicated that the compensation awarded was under Section 163-A, since the claimants themselves admitted that the accident has taken place due to the negligence of the deceased driver.
5. Aggrieved by the said award and decree, the Insurance Company carried the matter in appeal to this Court. The Insurance Company before this Court contended that since the accident has taken place due to negligence of the driver, he cannot approach the Motor Vehicles Tribunal claiming compensation and the only course open to him is to approach the Commissioner under Workmen’s Compensation Act. This contention found favour with the learned Judge, and the award of the Tribunal was set aside on the ground of want of jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute under Motor Vehicles Act. Hence, the claimants preferred the present L.P.A.
6. Learned Counsel for the appellants having brought to our notice that Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act stated that though this provision was brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge, the appeal was dismissed by the learned Judge without adverting to their contention, we do not want to go into the controversy whether this Section was brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge or not. It is suffice to state that the general rule of proving rash and negligent driving to claim compensation under Motor Vehicle Act was diluted by introduction of this Section. This being welfare legislation is intended to provide financial assistance, to the dependants of the person involved in a road accident and incurred inability or suffered death. Hence, we have no hesitation to hold that the dependants of the deceased person are having option either to approach the Commissioner under Workmen’s Compensation Act, since the person died during the course of his employment or under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Since the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act are more beneficial, the claimants rightly approached the Tribunal under Motor Vehicles Tribunal. Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company strenuously contended that the claimants filed application under Section 166 of the Act and as such the Court below gravely erred in applying the table given in Second Schedule to Motor Vehicles Act under Section 163-A of the Act. This objection cannot be sustained at this point of time, since the Supreme Court as early as in 1950 held that even if a party approaches the Court invoking a wrong provision, the Court is always bound to do justice by applying the correct law. Though the learned District Judge did not specifically state that he is passing the award under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the very fact that he applied the Section in awarding compensation indicates that he is conscious of the fact that he was passing the award under Section 163-A. Hence, this contention cannot hold water.
7. For the foregoing reasons, we have no option except to set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge in AA No. 2577 of 1999 and restore the Award and decree of the Tribunal made in OP No. 231 of 1996, dated 23-6-1998.
8. In the result, the appeal is allowed. No costs.