H.R.Panwar, J. - (1.) This appeal under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') is directed against the judgment and award dated 2.6.1997 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sirohi (hereinafter referred as 'the Tribunal'), whereby the Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 1,40,000 in favour of the respondent-claimant Nos. 1 and 2 (for short 'the claimants') and against the appellant-Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'the Corporation') and its driver respondent No. 3, Champa Lal. Aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and award impugned, the Corporation has filed the instant appeal.
(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and award impugned. I have also gone through the record of the Tribunal.
(3.) It is contended by learned counsel for appellant Corporation that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to pass the award in favour of the claimants; deceased Radha Bai was an employee of the Corporation on the relevant date of the accident, therefore, section 53 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short 'E.S.I. Act') creates a bar for receiving or recovering of compensation for damages under any other law; deceased was a 'workman' being an employee of the Corporation, therefore, even if her legal heirs are entitled for any compensation then too the proper forum, before whom the compensation can be claimed, is the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'the W.C. Act'); and as respondents-claimants (for short 'the claimants') are the major sons of the deceased, therefore, they cannot be said to be dependent on the income of the deceased. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon a single Bench judgment of Punjab & Har- yana High Court in Chameli Devi v. Delhi Trans. Corpn., 1990 ACJ 482 (P&H). On the contrary, the learned counsel for the claimants has supported the judgment of the Tribunal.;