S. Acharya, J. - (1.)THE applicants who preferred the claim for compensation under Section 110 -A of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) being aggrieved by the impugned order have preferred this appeal.
(2.)APPLICANT No. 1 is the widow and Appellant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are the minor sons of the deceased. The State of Orissa admittedly is the owner of the jeep ORB 4392 which caused the accident on 11 -9 -73 when it was being driven by a mechanic of M/s. National Motor Workshop of Bhubaneswar. It was alleged by the claimants, and it has been found by the court below, that the said jeep at the time of the accident was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and that the vehicle in question at the relevant time had been entrusted by its owner for repairs to M/s. National Motor Workshop and a mechanic of the said workshop, while driving the said jeep for trial after repairs, knocked down the deceased and caused his death. The said findings are not challenged.
The Claims Tribunal finds that the claimants ordinarily would have been entitled to a compensation of Rs. 40,000/ - for this accident, but in this case the owner of the vehicle, i.e.; the State of Orissa, cannot be held liable for this accident as the vehicle in question at the relevant time had been delivered to the above mentioned workshop for the repairs and so the said vehicle and the mechanic of the workshop who was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident were not under the control of State of Orissa. It further holds that the said workshop in the facts of this case was acting as an independent contractor and so the State of Orissa cannot be held liable for the accident committed by the mechanic of the workshop.

(3.)MR . Misra, the learned Counsel for the Appellants, contends that the claimants, on the facts and circumstances of this case, are entitled to get compensation from the owner of the jeep and that the court below has not been able to appreciate the law on the subject in the correct perspective.