JUDGMENT Per Hon'ble B.S. Verma, J.- This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the Act) is directed against the judgment and award dated 21.7.2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal District Judge, Pithoragarh (in short the Tribunal) in Claim Petition No. 82 of 2002, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 2,54,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum. Aggrieved, the appellant has come up in appeal. 2. On 25.8.2000 at 12 O'clock at night near Mangalta Sheraghat on Almora-Berinagh motor road, Keshar Singh aged 20 years, earning Rs. 2.100/- per month lost his life as a result of grievous injuries sustained in the motor vehicle accident involving Mahindra Utility Jeep No. UP 03-3375 due to rash and negligent driving by its driver. According to the claimants, the deceased was a young man and employed in the said Jeep as labour/helper, hence the claim petition was filed by his legal heirs/dependents. 3. The owner of the vehicle filed his written statement and denied the allegations of the petition for want of knowledge. He denied rashness and negligence on the part of the driver. It was pleaded that the 'compensatiol1 claimed was excessive; that the vehicle was duly insured with the appellant and that the vehicle was being plied as per policy conditions. 4. The Insurer of the vehicle fled written statement alleging therein that the vehicle was being driven in violation of the policy conditions; that the driver was not holding valid papers including valid driving licence at the time of accident and that the compensation claimed was excessive. 5. Learned Tribunal framed relevant issues in the case. It held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of Jeep No. UP 03-3315. It further held that the driver was holding a valid driving licence. Ultimately, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 2,54,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum. 6. In support of appeal it was contended on behalf of the appellant that the deceased was a cleaner in the vehicle and he was not covered under the Insurance Policy. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is misconceived. A perusal of the Insurance Policy shows that the Insurance Company has charged premium of Rs. 75/- in respect of persons employed in connection with the operation and/or loading/unloading of motor vehicle. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is misconceived. A perusal of the Insurance Policy shows that the Insurance Company has charged premium of Rs. 75/- in respect of persons employed in connection with the operation and/or loading/unloading of motor vehicle. The case of the claimants Was that the deceased was working as labourer and he was engaged in the work of loading and unloading. In support of their case, claimants examined P.W.1 Rookam Singh and he gave categorical statement to that effect. Moreover, the owner of the vehicle, Devraj Singh, O.P.W 1 clearly testified that the deceased Keshar Singh was doing the work of loading and unloading in his vehicle. Thus, it was proved that the deceased was engaged in loading/unloading work and he was fully covered under the Insurance Policy. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that cleaner or helper was not covered under the Insurance Policy was of no avail and the statement of D.W.2 Mr. Vijay Singh Kuwar, Branch Manager of the appellant vis-a-vis the Insurance Policy has no relevance on this score. We have observed earlier that the persons connected with the work of loading and unloading engaged in the vehicle were insured under the Policy. 7. It was next contended on behalf of the appellant that the claimants were not entitled to file claim petition once they had filed a claim petition under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. This contention too is not tenable. It is true that the claimants filed a claim petition before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, but the same was withdrawn by them. Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides as under :- 8. 167. Option regarding claims for compensation in certain cases" Notwithstanding anything contained in the Workmen's Compensation Act 1923 (8 of 1923) where the death of, or bodily injury to, any person gives rise to a claim for compensation under this Act and also under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, the person entitled to compensation may without prejudice to the provisions of Chapter X claim such compensation under either of those Acts but not under both." 9. The only bar under the Act is that claim petitions under both the aforesaid Acts are not maintainable at one time. The only bar under the Act is that claim petitions under both the aforesaid Acts are not maintainable at one time. In our opinion, the claimants, having withdrawn the claim petition under the Workmen's Compensation Act, were entitled to file claim petition under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is provided under clause (c) of Section 166(1) of the Act that an application for compensation arising out of an accident may be made by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased. It is not disputed by the appellant that the claimants were not the legal representatives of the deceased. The appellant could not show as to how the claim petition by the parents of the deceased, who was admittedly unmarried, was barred. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant has lastly hammered the quantum of compensation and interest awarded by the Tribunal. The scope for filing an appeal by the Insurance Company is limited. Unless there is specific permission granted under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, or there is a finding of the Tribunal that there was collusion between the claimant and the person against whom the claim has been made, it is not open to the appellant to challenge the quantum of compensation in appeal. We are fortified in our view by the Apex Court judgment in the Case of "National Insurance Company Ltd. Chandigarh II. Nicolletta Rohtagi and others" [(2002) 7, Supreme Court Cases, 456]. In that case, it has been observed that "even if no appeal is preferred under Section 173 of 1988 Act by an insured against the award of a Tribunal, it is not permissible for an insurer to file an appeal questioning the quantum of compensation as well as findings as regard negligence or contributory negligence of the offending vehicle". 11. In the result, the appeal has no force and is liable to be dismissed. 12. The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and award dated 21.7.2004 is affirmed. No order as to costs. 13. The amount in deposit with this Court be remitted to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal concerned, for being paid to the claimants.