JUDGMENT This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed aggrieved over the Award dated 21-4-2008 passed in MVOP.No. 564 of 2006 by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Kurnool. 2. The aforesaid claim petition was filed by the claimants, claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of death of one T. Prasad in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 9-6-2005. It was averred in the claim petition that on 9-5-2005 at about 1.00 PM the deceased-T.Prasad was proceeding on the tractor-Trailer bearing Registration Nos. AP.21V.2919 and AP 21V. 2920 as driver. When the said tractor was crossing the unmanned railway gate No. 137 in between Kurnool town and Dupadu Railway Station, it being driven in rash and negligent manner, dashed against a train, as a result of which, the deceased died on the spot. It was further averred that at the time of death, the deceased was aged 29 years and used to earn Rs.4,000/- per month. The claimants being the dependants on the income of the deceased, filed the aforesaid claim petition claiming compensation. 3. The fifth respondent herein is the owner of the said tractor and trailer. He remained ex parte before the Tribunal. The appellant herein, being the insurer of the said tractor and trailer, filed the counter before the Tribunal, denying the averments made in the claim petition, the manner of accident, and income of the deceased. It further stated that there was negligence on the part of the railways for keeping the railway gate without any guard to watch the vehicular movements. 4. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the followings issues and additional issues for settlement. 1. Whether the accident that occurred on 9-6-2005 at about 1.00 PM at unmanned Railway Level Crossing Gate No. 137, in between Kurnool and Dupadu Railway Station, resulting in the death of T.Prasad was due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor-trailer bearing registration No. AP.21V.2919 and 2920 by its driver or was there any negligence on the part of the Railway authorities? 2. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? 3. Whether the Court has no jurisdiction to try this petition? 4. Whether the petitioners are entitled to Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation? If not, to what extent and from whom? 5. To what relief? ADDITIONAL ISSUES: 1. whether this Tribunal has got jurisdiction to try this case and grant compensation? 2. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? 3. Whether the Court has no jurisdiction to try this petition? 4. Whether the petitioners are entitled to Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation? If not, to what extent and from whom? 5. To what relief? ADDITIONAL ISSUES: 1. whether this Tribunal has got jurisdiction to try this case and grant compensation? 2. Whether this OP is maintainable or not? 5. In order to prove the claim, On behalf of the claimants, P.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs. A 1 to A3 were marked. On behalf of the Insurance Company, R.W.1 was examined and EX.B.1 was marked. 6. The Tribunal, on a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, recorded finding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the crime tractor by its driver, which resulted the death of the deceased and the Tribunal has jurisdiction to try the claim petition. Then proceeding to assess the compensation, the Tribunal took average earnings of the deceased at Rs.1800/- per month and after deducting 1/ 3 towards his personal expenses, awarded compensation of Rs.2,44,800/- on account of loss of dependence. Adding to this, the Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- towards consortium, Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. In total, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.2,44,800/-, and, directed the Insurance Company and owner of the Crime Vehicle to pay the same, jointly and severally, with interest at 7.5% per annum. 7. Aggrieved over the same, the Insurance Company filed the present appeal. 8. In this appeal, it is contended by the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant Insurance Company, that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition and only the Railway Claims Tribunal has got jurisdiction, and, that the Tribunal erred in awarding Rs.15,000/- towards consortium. 9. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondents-claimants submits that the award passed by the Tribunal is based on evidence on record and the same is in accordance with law and, therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 10. As regards the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition, he relied on Sections 13 (1)(a) and 15 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act 1987 which read as follows: 13. 10. As regards the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition, he relied on Sections 13 (1)(a) and 15 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act 1987 which read as follows: 13. JURISDITION, POWERS AND AUTHORITY OF CLAIMS TRIBUNAL: (1) The Claims Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, all such jurisdiction, powers and authority, as were exercisable immediately before that day by any civil Court or a claims Commissioner appointed under the provisions of the Railways Act:- (a) relating to the responsibility of the railway administrations as carriers under Chapter VII of the Railways Act in respect of claims for- a. Compensation for loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of animals, or goods entrusted to a railway administration for carriage by railway; b. Compensation payable under Section 82-A of the Railways Act or the rules made thereunder; and *** **** ***** (1-A) The Claims Tribunal shall also exercise, on and from the date of commencement of the provisions of Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (24 of 1989), all such jurisdiction, powers and authority as were exercisable immediately before that date by any civil Court in respect of claims for compensation now payable by the railway administration under Section 124-A of the said Act or the rules made thereunder) 15. BAR OF JURISDICJTION: On and from the appointed day, no Court or other authority shall have, or be entitled to, exercise any jurisdiction, powers or authority in relation to the matters referred to in Sub Section (1) and (1-A) of Section 13. BAR OF JURISDICJTION: On and from the appointed day, no Court or other authority shall have, or be entitled to, exercise any jurisdiction, powers or authority in relation to the matters referred to in Sub Section (1) and (1-A) of Section 13. Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 reads as follows: 124-A: COMPENSATION ON ACCOUNT OF UNTOWARD INCIDENTS: When in the course of working a railway an untoward incident occurs, then whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration such as would entitle a passenger who has been injured or the dependant of a passenger who has been killed to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the railway administration shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, be liable to pay compensation to such extent as may be prescribed and to that extent only for loss occasioned by the death of, or injury to, a passenger as a result of such untoward incident: Provided that no compensation shall be payable under this section by the railway administration if the passenger dies or suffers injury due to- (a) suicide or attempted suicide by him; (b) self inflicted injury; (c) his own criminal act; (d) any act committed by him in a state of intoxication or insanity (e) any natural cause or disease or medical or surgical treatment unless such treatment becomes necessary due to injury caused by the said untoward incident. 11. As per the above provisions, the claims on account of loss, destruction, damage, deterioration etc., with the railways can be claimed straightaway under Section 13 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. Section 124-A of the Railways Act deals with untoward incident by which for the wrongful act, neglect or default on the part 'of the railway administration, it is liable to pay compensation for the loss occasioned by the death of, or injury to, a passenger as a result of such untoward incident. Section 124-A of the Railways Act deals with untoward incident by which for the wrongful act, neglect or default on the part 'of the railway administration, it is liable to pay compensation for the loss occasioned by the death of, or injury to, a passenger as a result of such untoward incident. Only in those cases where the claim is made with regard to loss or destruction or damage to passenger or dependent of passenger as enumerated under Section 13 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act or any injury or death sustained by a passenger in train as a result of untoward incident, or workmen of the railways under Section 124-A of the Railways Act were barred under Section 15 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, according to which, no Court or authority shall have jurisdiction to entertain the claim. Therefore, it is quiet clear that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain the application for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. The said view was fortified by a Division Bench of Allahabad Court in the case of Amrita Devi v. S.K Srivastava. In the said case, it was held as follows: "In cases, where it is found by the Tribunal that the accident was caused only due to negligence of the outside agency and not by the driver of the motor vehicle, in that case alone the Tribunal shall cease to have any jurisdiction to grant any relief to the claimant. Where the claim is preferred only against an outside agency then too, the claim petition would not be maintainable. But in the present case, the Tribunal proceeded to decide the matter on the basis that the accident occurred due to fall of cross bar of the Railways at the railway crossing but without going into the question about the negligence of the motor cycle driver.... After the trial, if it was found that there was negligence on the part of the outside agency alone, then the prayer for award of compensation could be turned down. But where it is found to be a case of contributory negligence or composite negligence or even a slight negligence on the part of the motor cycle driver, the claim petition would be maintainable before the claims Tribunal" 12. But where it is found to be a case of contributory negligence or composite negligence or even a slight negligence on the part of the motor cycle driver, the claim petition would be maintainable before the claims Tribunal" 12. In the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v. Union of India and others {1987 ACJ 734}, a Division Bench of Gujarat High Court held as follows: "Let us now take stock of the situation. On the aforesaid discussion of the relevant provisions of the Act and various decisions of the High Courts, it appears clear to us that following four types of cases can give rise to claims for compensation. 1. Claims for compensation in cases where it is alleged that motor vehicle driver was solely responsible for causing accidental injuries giving rise to the claims for compensation. 2. Claims for compensation in cases of accidents where it is alleged that accident is caused not on account of rash or negligent driving of driver of the motor vehicle but is solely caused on account of rashness or negligence of any outside agency who might have rashly or negligently used any vehicle other than the motor vehicle causing the accidental injuries or who might have been solely responsible for the accident even otherwise. 3. Claims for compensation in cases where it is alleged that the accident giving rise to the claim is the result of composite negligence not only of the driver of the motor vehicle but also of outside agency or driver of another vehicle which may not be motor vehicle but who might be found negligent contributing to the causing of the accident, meaning thereby claims for compensation against joint tort-feasors, one of which atleast is the driver of a motor vehicle. 4. Cases where it is alleged that accidental injuries have been caused on account at composite negligence of driver of the motor vehicle as well as any other person who might be jointly responsible for causing the accident. But when ultimately on evidence, it is found by the Tribunal that driver of the motor vehicle was not at all responsible, not even to the slightest extent and that sale responsibility for causing of the accident rested on the shoulders of the driver at the vehicle which is not a motor vehicle or on the shoulders of any other agency. It becomes at once clear that sp far as first tlype of cases are concerned, it is the Claims Tribunal alone which can entertain such claims under Section 110(1) of the Act and can adjudicate upon the same and if ultimately it is found that motor vehicle driver was negligent, proper compensation can be awarded against the driver, owner and insurer of the vehicle as the case may be. But if it is found on evidence that allegations in the petition were not made out and the motor vehicle driver was not negligent at all, then obviously the claim would fail on merits. So far as second type of cases are concerned, on the very allegation in the claim petition to the effect that the accident is caused solely on account of the negligence of any other person who may not have used any motor vehicle at the relevant time in causing the accident, the claim petition would not be maintainable before the Claims Tribunal as even form the allegations in the claim petition, it would appear obvious that the claim for compensation is not based or any accident resulting out of use of negligent use of any motor vehicle. Such a claim petition will have to be rejected on the threshold, by the Claims Tribunal. So far as third type of cases are concerned, because composite negligence is alleged both against the driver of the motor vehicle as well as driver of any other vehicle or any other outside agency, such claim petition would be maintainable before the Tribunal on the principle that outside parties are allowed to be joined as tort-feasors who have contributed to the causing of the accident and, their inter se liability can be adjudicated upon by the Tribunal and the Tribunal can obviously pass proper orders fixing just compensation and making it payable by the joint tort-feasors jointly and severally and also indicating inter se liability of the concerned joint tort-feasors for completing adjudication between the concerned parties so that future litigation inter se joint tort feasors for contribution can be avoided and in such cases, award can be passed against all joint tort-feasors even though some of them may not be drivers of motor vehicles but still they might have contributed along with driver of the motor vehicle in causing the accident. So far as last type of cases are concerned, on the allegations in the petition that the accident has been caused on account of composite negligence of the driver of the motor vehicle and driver of any other vehicle or outside agency, application for claim would be maintainable by the Claims Tribunal but ultimately, if after hearing the parties, the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the accident has been caused not on account of the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the motor vehicle but solely on account of rashness and negligence of other person who might have driven the vehicle other than motor vehicle like railway engine, horse-cart or camel-cart etc., or solely on account of negligence of outside agencies, then on the said finding, the cause would get out of provision of Section 110(1) at that stage as the Tribunal will have to hold on facts as a consequence of its finding as aforesaid that the accident was not caused on account of any rash and negligent use of any motor vehicle. Once that consequential finding is reached, the Tribunal would lose jurisdiction for passing appropriate orders against such tort-feasors who gets outside the network of Section 110(1) and consequently, claim against such outsider meaning thereby, other than driver of the motor vehicle, owner or insurance company, will have to be dismissed as not maintainable at that stage despite the finding of the Tribunal that such outsider is 100% responsible for the accident in question." 13. Therefore, the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has no jurisdiction is not sustainable. 14. As regards the award of compensation on account of loss of dependency, there is no dispute. The Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/ - towards loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/towards loss of estate and RS.5000/towards funeral expenses. But, as per II Schedule appended to M.V. Act 1988, Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses can be awarded. Thus, the total compensation payable to the claimants is Rs.2,54,300/-(Rs.2,44,800/- + 5,000/- + 2,500/- + 2,000/-), which shall be payable by the appellant and fifth respondent herein, jointly and severally, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization. 15. Subject to the above modification, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. No order as to costs.