This is an appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short MV Act) preferred by the appellant insurance company against the Award dated 20.8.19% passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aizawl m MACT Case No. 75 of 1993. 2. The claimant's brother's son was employed by the respondent No. 2 to supervise his stone quarry works at South and died while on duty and while traveling as a workman. The claimant preferred a claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aizawl by Award dated 20.8.96 decreed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs. 2,65644/-. Aggrieved with the said Award the appellant United India Insurance Co with whom the vehicle was insured has preferred this appeal. 3. In the judgment the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aizawl has made the following observation: “Although the Aizawl PS Police registered a criminal case vide Aizawl PS Case No. 699/93 dated 25.9.93 under section 279/338/304A BPC against the driver but as after investigation no negligence was found either on the part of the driver or on the part of the owner, so the case ended in FR vide/No, 207 dated 25.10.93. There is no further evidence on record to show that the accident was caused due to any negligence on the part of the OP No. 1.1 am, therefore, constrained to hold that the death of Lalthanmawia was purely accidental and the claimant could not satisfy by prove that the cause of the accident should be attributed to any proven negligence or fault of either the driver or the owner of vehicle ie ZRM 8825.” However, the prayer made by the learned counsel for the claimant that the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aizawl has awarded compensation under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 read with section 143 of the MV Act, 1988. The relevant portion of the section 140 of the MV Act provides as follows: “Where death or permanent disablement of any person has resulted from an accident arising out of the age of a the vehicle shall, or, as the case may be, the owners of the vehicles shall, jointly and severally, be liable to pay compensation in respect of such death or disablement in accordance with the provisions of this section. (2) The amount of compensation which shall be payable under sub-section (1) in respect of the death of any person shall be a fixed sum of twenty five thousand rupees and the amount of compensation payable under mat sub-section in respect of the permanent disablement of arty person shall be a fixed sum of twelve thousand rupees.” ....(emphasis laid) In view of the provisions of section 140 of the MV Act, where the accident has occurred from the use of the vehicle and the cause of accident cannot be attributed to any negligence/fault of the driver/owner of the vehicle only statutory amount of Rs. 25,000 in cases of death and hi cases of permanent disability have to be awarded Rs. 20,000 so in the instant case only statutory amount of Rs. 25,000 could be awarded to the claimant, as the accident is not due to the negligence/fault of the driver or owner of the vehicle. The learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was not justified in decreeing the claim petition preferred under section 166 of the MV Act read with the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The Award passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is therefore clearly without jurisdiction and is not sustainable in law. 4. The remedy open to me claimant is to file claim petition under the pro visions of Workmen Compensation Act, 1923. The learned counsel for the appellant I pointed out that the question of limitation would arise in this case, in such a case the provisions of section 14 of the Limitation Act are clearly applicable. The claimant while filing the claim petition under the provisions of Workmen a Compensation Act, 1923 may file petition under section 14 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. The learned Workmen's Compensation Commissioner shall condone the delay. 5. The appeal is allowed. The judgment and award dated 20.8.96 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aizawl are set aside. In pursuance of this Court's order dated 18.8.99 the appellant insurance company has deposited 50% of the awarded amount which the claimant has withdrawn on furnishing surety bond. The claimants are directed to refund that amount within a period of one year from today. On failure the appellant insurance company is entitled to recover back the said amount according to the provisions of law.