Venkataraman, J.
Heard.
1. The first respondent who is the mother of the deceased Arun claimed compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the death of her son when the scooter on which he was riding skidded and the deceased sustained injuries resulting in his death. The owner of the scooter as well as the insurer were made as respondents. The Tribunal having found that the accident did not take place due to any rash or negligent act on the part of the first respondent, but on the other hand on account of the skidding of the vehicle, held that the petitioner was not entitled to claim compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. However, the Tribunal which found on the material on record that the son of the petitioner died in an accident in which the motor vehicle was used was of the opinion that the petitioner was entitled to compensation on the principle of no fault liability under Section 140 of the Act and has awarded compensation of Rs. 25,000/-.
2. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that, the first respondent had sought for compensation only under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, that the Tribunal having found that compensation was not payable under that provision could not have awarded compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Another contention raised by him is that, when the Tribunal found that the accident took place on account of the act of the deceased himself, compensation under Section 140 of the Act could not have been awarded.
3. Both contentions are not tenable. Though the claimant might not be entitled to compensation on the basis of tort, in view of the fact that the deceased himself was driving the vehicle and he met with the accident on account of skidding of the vehicle, there was no bar for the Tribunal to consider whether the claimant would be entitled to compensation under Section 140 of the Act on facts which were established by evidence. The contention that the claim preferred being under Section 166, the Tribunal should not have considered the applicability of Section 140 is too technical which cannot be countenanced.
4. In the present case, the material on record clearly shows that the son of the claimant met with an accident arising out of use of a vehicle and that he died as a result of injuries sustained in the accident. Sub-section (1) of Section 140 provides that, where death of any person has resulted from an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle, the owner of the vehicle shall be liable to pay compensation in respect of such death. Sub-clause (3) of that Section stipulates that in a claim for compensation under Sub-section (1), the claimant need not plead and establish that the death had arisen due to any wrongful act, neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle concerned or any other person. Sub-clause (4) makes it clear that the claim for compensation under Sub-section (1) shall not be defeated by reason of any wrongful act, neglect or default of the person in respect of whose death the claim has been made. These provisions are very clear and when it is found that a person met with death in an accident on account of the use of a motor vehicle, the entitlement for compensation under Section 140 arises and that cannot be defeated merely because the claimant had claimed compensation even on the ground of fault on the part of the owner or other person.
5. In the present case, the evidence on record clearly established the liability of the owner of the vehicle under Section 140(1) of the Act and the Tribunal was wholly justified in awarding the compensation under the provision.
I do not find any good ground to admit this Appeal. Appeal is therefore, rejected.