J.C. Verma, J.
1. This miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by the insurance company challenging the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Neem Ka Thana (Sikar), dated 21.12.1998 in Case No. 5 of 1991 wherein a sum of Rs. 1,66,000 has been awarded along with interest to the claimants now respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
2. The claimants had preferred the claim as legal heirs of deceased Pappu on account of the accident between truck No. RJV 4110 being driven by the deceased and owned by respondent No. 5 and jeep No. RJ 23-0326 being driven by respondent No. 6 and owned by respondent No. 7. The accident was caused on 21.9.1990 on the road from Neem Ka Thana to Sikar near Guhala. The jeep was insured by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and the truck was insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd.
3. AWs 3 and 4 have stated that the accident had been caused on account of the negligence of the driver of the jeep whereas NAW 1 and NAW 2 had deposed that the accident had been caused because of the sole negligence of the driver of the truck. The deceased was the driver of the truck. The Tribunal had given a finding to the effect that the accident had been caused due to the negligence of the truck driver. The Tribunal had further held the liability of compensation to be paid on the shoulders of the owner of the truck and the appellant non-claimant No. 5 solely, i.e., National Insurance Co. Ltd.
4. Award is challenged by the insurance company to the effect that after giving the finding that the accident had been caused because of the negligence of the truck driver and because of the deceased himself being negligent, the insurance company cannot be held to be liable. It is stated that the liability cannot be put when the claim is made by the tortfeasor himself and no benefit can be derived by the wrongdoer himself. No other point has been raised.
5. Admittedly, the driver of the truck was an employee of respondent No. 5 and the said truck was insured with the present insurance company appellant. Assuming the finding of the Tribunal to be correct to the effect that the accident had been caused due to negligence of the driver of the truck who had died in the accident, but still the liability of the insurance company and the owner of the truck is not lessened because of the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The age of the truck driver was 27 years, the compensation has been awarded to the extent of Rs. 1,66,000 as detailed in the award. Counsel states that in case the claimants, the L.Rs. of the deceased would have claimed the compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, in that situation, the amount would have been about Rs. 90,000 plus interest and penalty under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act.
6. In case of Rita Devi v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2000 ACJ 801 (SC), the autorickshaw was hired by certain persons with the object to steal the vehicle and killing the driver, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the murder of the driver was an accidental murder and the legal representatives of deceased driver were held entitled to compensation for his death. It was held by the Apex Court that the stealing of the autorickshaw was the object of the felony and the murder that was caused in the said process of stealing of the autorickshaw was only incidental to the act of stealing the autorickshaw, therefore, the Apex Court held that death was caused accidentally in the process of committing theft of the autorickshaw; therefore, the decision of Tribunal was right to come to the conclusion that the claimants were entitled to compensation as claimed by them and the judgment of High Court was wrong in reversing the judgment of Tribunal and coming to the conclusion that the death was not caused by an accident involving the use of motor vehicle. It was observed that the Acts, viz., the Motor Vehicles Act and the Workmen's Compensation Act is to provide compensation to the victims of the accidents. The only difference between the two enactments is that so far as the Workmen's Compensation Act is concerned, it is confined to workmen as defined under that Act while the relief provided under Chapters X to XII of Motor Vehicles Act is available to all victims of accidents involving a motor vehicle. This conclusion is supported by Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act under which, it is open to the claimants either to proceed to claim compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act or under Motor Vehicles Act. A perusal of the objects of the two enactments clearly establishes that both the enactments are beneficial enactments operating in the same field, hence the judicially accepted interpretation of the word 'death' in the Workmen's Compensation Act is certainly applicable to the interpretation of the word 'death' in the Motor Vehicles Act also.
7. In the case of Rita Devi, 2000 ACJ 801 (SC), the High Court had come to the conclusion that there was no motor accident as contemplated under the Act and the case was that of murder and not of accident, therefore, no petition for compensation was maintainable. The deceased who was- employed to drive autorickshaw was duty-bound to have accepted the demand of fare paying passengers to transport them to the place of their destination. During the course of this duty if the passengers had decided to commit an act of felony of stealing the autorickshaw and in the course of achieving the said object of stealing autorickshaw, they had to eliminate the driver then it cannot but be said that the death so caused to the driver of the autorickshaw was an accidental murder. The Tribunal had rightly awarded the compensation.
8. The only contention being raised by the appellant is that the claimants should have preferred the claim under the Workmen 's Compensation Act and not under the Motor Vehicles Act.
9. After hearing learned Counsel for the appellant, I am not convinced with the arguments. Even though the claim could have been filed under the Workmen's Compensation Act, the owner and the insurance company would have been liable for payment of compensation and compensation would have been almost equal to the amount in question. I see no merit in the submission by the appellant that the claimants could or should have approached the authority under the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act only, the matter already stands settled by the Apex Court in Rita Devi's case, 2000 ACJ 801 (SC).
10. The miscellaneous appeal is dismissed at admission stage.