( 1 ) THE appellant-Insurance company, aggrieved by the order of the Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District judge Vizianagaram passed in O. P. No. 163 of 1998 dated 07-09-2000 granting compensation of Rs. 62,380/- in favour of claimants, preferred this appeal. ( 2 ) THE facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that on 30-5-1997 at 2-00 A. M. while the petitioner was coming from Kodada to Salur with klinker load by driving his lorry AP 31 T 7286 and when he reached near co-operative Society of Bondapalli,he found a lorry bearing No. AEV 5904 which was stationed and the petitioner on noticing a double bullock cart, applied brakes and on account of application of brakes, the vehicle dashed against the stationed lorry on its rear portion and the vehicle turned turtle and the petitioner sustained injuries. ( 3 ) THE case of the first respondent is one of the total denial of the material allegations and stated that he is not liable to pay any compensation since the vehicle was insured with R-2 Company. ( 4 ) THE case of the second respondent insurance company is also denial of material averments of the petition and contended that the vehicle was not insured with it and that it is not liable to pay compensation as the accident was occurred due to negligence of the petitioner himself. ( 5 ) ON these rival pleadings the Tribunal below has framed appropriate issues. On behalf of the petitioner P. Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs. A-1 to A-7 and Ex. X-1 and X-2 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents. ( 6 ) THE Tribunal on consideration of both oral and documentary evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 and Exs. A-l to A-7, Exs. X-l and X-2, categorically held that the driver himself, by rash and negligent driving caused the accident, though it is stated that to avoid the accident with another vehicle, the accident occurred and awarded compensation of rs. 62,380/ -. ( 7 ) AGGRIEVED by the same, the present miscellaneous Appeal is preferred. ( 8 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant contends that when the driver tried to avoid the collision with D. B. cart, coming in the opposite direction, in the process of averting accident, he dashed against the other lorry on the road margin. 62,380/ -. ( 7 ) AGGRIEVED by the same, the present miscellaneous Appeal is preferred. ( 8 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant contends that when the driver tried to avoid the collision with D. B. cart, coming in the opposite direction, in the process of averting accident, he dashed against the other lorry on the road margin. Therefore, he is not negligent in driving the vehicle. But, on scrutiny of the evidence the Tribunal came to the conclusion that since the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the crime vehicle and he sustained injuries in the said accident, petition is not maintainable. To that effect he relied on the decisions in Addala Lakshmi and others v. G. Subhadramma and another and United india Insurance Company Limited, Armoor branch, Nizamabad District v. Kore Laxmp and contended that at the most petitioner has to approach the Commissioner for Workmen compensation to claim the same. ( 9 ) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the tribunal having held that accident occurred due to rashness and negligence of the petitioner himself and as such the appellant and the owner of the said lorry are liable to pay compensation and accordingly calculated the compensation at rs. 62,380/ -. ( 10 ) AS the accident occurred on 30-05-1997 and the matter is pending for consideration for a long period of 7 years, therefore, at this point of time directing the petitioner-claimant to approach the commissioner for Workmen Compensation act to claim compensation does not serve any purpose and is against the interest of the petitioner, who has virtually become permanently disabled, due to injuries sustained by him in the accident. ( 11 ) THERE is no quarrel with regard to the principle laid down by my learned brothers in the Judgments referred to above. As submitted by the learned counsel for appellant, the appellant has already deposited 50% of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for respondents that already 7 years have lapsed and the claimant has not received a single pie by virtue of the pendency of the appeal, therefore, I am not inclined to drive the respondent/claimant to approach commissioner for workmen compensation, to claim the compensation, which may take some more time. Therefore, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for respondents that already 7 years have lapsed and the claimant has not received a single pie by virtue of the pendency of the appeal, therefore, I am not inclined to drive the respondent/claimant to approach commissioner for workmen compensation, to claim the compensation, which may take some more time. For these reasons, I am inclined to confirm the award granting compensation of Rs. 62,380/ -. ( 12 ) THE C. M. A. is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.