S.K. Chattopadhyay, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties on the limitation petition as well as merit of the appeal.
2. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and going through the limitation petition, I am satisfied that sufficient ground has been made out to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The limitation petition is accordingly allowed and delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
3. The appellant-insurance Company has challenged the order of the Tribunal dated 7.6.1999 by reason of which the appellant has been directed to pay interim compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
4. The only point raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the death of the deceased had not taken place due to any motor accident rather they were killed by miscreants and after killing they filed away with the vehicles and therefore, the claim petition before the Motor Vehicles Tribunal was not maintainable. According to the learned Counsel the claimants ought to have preferred a claim before the statutory authority under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
5. In my view this submission is not sustainable in view of the latest decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rita Devi and Ors. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. . In view of this, I find no merit in this appeal which is, accordingly, dismissed.
6. Learned Counsel for the appellant fairly submits that the statutory amount deposited by the company in this Court may be paid to the claimants.
7. Accordingly, let the amount deposited in this Court be released in favour of the claimants-respondents after following the procedure.