JUDGMENT This is an appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act read with section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act, against the order dated 16.11.1994 passed by Shri G.L. Madiwal, Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation No. 1, Gwalior, in case No. 39/92 W.C.A. (F). One Kashiram's son Hariram was serving with respondent No. 1 Viryamsingh as a driver of truck No. MBW 1704. On 11.7.1991 he met with an accident by the said truck and died. His father Kashiram filed an application before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation under section 140 of the M.V.A. section 143 of the M.V.A. makes applicable to the provisions of Chapter X-Liability to pay compensation in motor accidents on the principle of no fault liability. Section 143 makes the provisions of this Chapter also applicable in relation to any claim for compensation in respect of death or permanent disablement of any person resulting from an accident of the nature referred to in sub-section (1) of section 140. Section 143 is quoted below :- "Section 143-Applicability of Chapter to certain claims under Act 8 of 1923- The Provisions of this Chapter shall also apply in relation to any claim for compensation in respect of death or permanent disablement of any person under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, resulting from an accident of the nature referred to in sub-section (1) of Sec. 140 and for this purpose, the said provisions shall with necessary modifications, be deemed to form part of that Act." The deceased being driver was a workman under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. An application under section 140 was, therefore, filed. For making payment for no fault liability it was contended that Hariram was the driver, he sustained injuries and died. It was an accidental death. Notice was issued to the respondents, who denied that as a result of injuries sustained in an accident Hariram died. The Claims Tribunal rejected the application holding that appellant is not entitled to get any compensation as within the meaning of section 2 (1) (b) of the Workmen's Compensation Act he cannot claim in the category of dependent. Notice was issued to the respondents, who denied that as a result of injuries sustained in an accident Hariram died. The Claims Tribunal rejected the application holding that appellant is not entitled to get any compensation as within the meaning of section 2 (1) (b) of the Workmen's Compensation Act he cannot claim in the category of dependent. Section 2 (1) (b) is quoted below :- "Section 2 (1) a widow, a minor legitimate son, an unmarried legitimate daughter, or a widowed mother; (b) a parent other than a widowed mother." Appellant Kashiram, the father of the deceased, being parent is dependant and comes under section 2 (1) (b) of the Act. Alongwith claim application the death certificate, the report received from the police station were filed before the Commissioner. The non-applicant No. 1 Viryamsingh filed the reply to the application on 17.11.1993 and admitted that Hariram died as a result of an accident, and he was in employment, but raised plea that since the truck was insured the respondent No. 2-Insurance Company itself is liable to pay the compensation. Learned Commissioner did not consider owner's plea and without application of mind mechanically rejected the claim. The documents filed by the appellant and the admission of respondent No. 1, who is the owner of the truck for the purpose of section 140 of the M.V.A. were sufficient and there was no justification to refuse the claim for no fault liability. Considering the facts and circumstances, the impugned order is set aside. The respondent are liable to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards no fault liability. The respondent No. 2-Insurance Company has over-delayed the payment. It should be paid promptly. The appeal is allowed with costs. Counsel fee Rs. 500/-, if certified. Cost to be born by Insurance Company.