- (1.) THE victim was a driver of Auto Rickshaw, that caused the accident and the victim died. His widow and children applied for compensation that was denied by the Tribunal on the ground that the driver was not covered by the policy of insurance. The Tribunal relied on a Division Bench decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Appaji (Since Deceased) & Anr. v. M. Krishna & Anr., reported in (2005)1 T.A.C. 994 (Kant.).
(2.) WE have heard Mr. Subir Banerjee, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. Asimesh Goswami, learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company. On a close look to the Karnataka Division Bench decision, we find that the claimants made an application under Section 163 A claiming compensation for death of a scooterist, who did not own the scooter. According to the claimants, the owner engaged him as driver. The Karnataka High Court considered the policy of insurance and came to conclusion that driver of a scooter was not covered by the policy of insurance. We find from the record of the present case before us that the driver was squarely covered by the policy of insurance. Hence, in our view, the Karnataka High Court decision would be of no assistance to us. The Tribunal possibly overlooked this aspect.
(3.) MR . Banerjee has relied on a Division Bench decision of our Court in the case of Khokan @ Prodeep Saha v. N.I.A. Co. Ltd. & Anr., reported in (2010) 3 WBLR (Cal) 199, wherein the Division Bench held that under Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the claimants would have option either to approach the Workmen's Compensation Court or the Motor Accident Tribunal for appropriate relief.;