Judgment : Dr. Bhakthavatsala, J This appeal is directed against judgment and award dated 13/8/2004 made in MVC No.335/1999 on the file of Prl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and Addl. MACT, at Hubli. 2. The brief facts of the case leading to filing of the appeal by the North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (in short ‘RTC’) may be stated as under: The respondents No. 1 to 5 herein filed a claim petition under Section 166 of Motor V3hicles Act 1988 (in short ‘the M.V. Act’) seeking grant of compensation of Rs.9,78,752/-with costs and interest from the appellant/RTC and driver of the bus, towards death of Babusab @ Babulal S/o. Rajesab Nadaf, who died in a motor accident that occurred on 24/9/1998. The claimants are mother, wife and three children of the deceased Babusab. They have stated that the deceased Babusab was working as a mechanic in the appellant RTC and when he was coming by walk on the extreme side of the road, after finishing the work assigned to him and when he was near Hubli Hosur City KSRTC Deport, First Gate, a new bus chassis bearing No. HRR 116116 belonging to the road transport corporation, driven by its driver came in a rash and negligent manner from Hosur side towards Vidyanagar. The driver of the bus suddenly turned the vehicle to the left without sound horn, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against Babusab. As a result of which Babusab died on the spot. It is stated in the claim petition that the deceased was drawing salary of Rs.7,487/-and the claimants were depending upon the income of the deceased. Therefore, they prayed for compensation from the owner of the vehicle as stated above. 3. The road transport corporation filed statement of objections denying the averments of the claim petition and also taken a contention that the legal representatives of the deceased were paid a sum of Rs.1,59,800/-as compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act (in shrt ‘W.C.Act’) and therefore they are not liable to pay any compensation under M.V. Act. 4. On 23/8/2002 the Claims Tribunal framed the following: ISSUES 1. Whether the alleged accident was due to rash and negligent driving of a new Chassis bearing Registration No.HRR.116116 of K.S.R.T.C.? 2. Whether deceased Babusab had sustained fatal injuries in the said accident? 3. If so, how much compensation the claimants are entitled to? 4. 4. On 23/8/2002 the Claims Tribunal framed the following: ISSUES 1. Whether the alleged accident was due to rash and negligent driving of a new Chassis bearing Registration No.HRR.116116 of K.S.R.T.C.? 2. Whether deceased Babusab had sustained fatal injuries in the said accident? 3. If so, how much compensation the claimants are entitled to? 4. What award or order? 5. In support of the case of the claimants the son of the deceased got himself examined as PW.1 and got marked copy of FIR, spot panchanama, postmortem report, charge sheet, salary certificate as Ex.P.1 to P.5. In rebuttal the RTC has got examined its officers as RW.1 to RW.3 and got marked cop0y of the order passed by the Commissio9ner for Workmen’s Compensation and appointment order as Ex.R.1 and R.2. The Tribunal for the reasons stated in the impugned judgment, answered issue No.1 and 2 in the affirmative. Issue No.3 was answered holding that the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.7,49,000/-and deducted Rs.1,59,800/-awarded by the Commissioner under W.C.Act and held that balance amount of Rs.5,89,200/-along with costs and interest shall be paid by road transport corporation. This is impugned in this appeal by the RTC. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that as per Section 167 of the M.V.Act, the claimants having opted to claim compensation under the W.C.Act, they were not entitled to claim compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988. It is also urged that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is exorbitant. 7. Per contra, Learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants submits that in view of the decision in GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs. HATHIBHAI SENGHABHAI RUPPURA AND OTHERS1 the claimants are entitled to claim compensation under the W.C. Act as well as under Section 1566 of M.V.Act. 8. In view of the arguments addressed by the Learned Counsels for the parties, the following points would arise for our consideration. i) The claimants, having opted to claim compensation under the W.C.Act, are they entitled to claim compensation under Section 166 of M.V.Act? ii) If answer to point No.1 is in the affirmative, whether quantum of compensation awarded is exorbitant? 9. Our answer to the above points is as under: Point No.1: In the affirmative. Point No.2: In the negative. 10. Point No.1: The claimants viz., respondents No.1 and 2 are the mother and wife of the deceased. ii) If answer to point No.1 is in the affirmative, whether quantum of compensation awarded is exorbitant? 9. Our answer to the above points is as under: Point No.1: In the affirmative. Point No.2: In the negative. 10. Point No.1: The claimants viz., respondents No.1 and 2 are the mother and wife of the deceased. They are rustic ladies. The deceased was a mechanic in RTC. When the deceased was coming on the left side of the road, a new bus chassis belonging to KSRTC came and dashed against him. As a result of which he sustained fatal injuries and died. Since the deceased died in a motor accident, the claimants were entitled to file a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V.Act and seek compensation against the RTC being the owner of the chassis. The deceased was getting a salary of Rs.7,487/-. On account of ignorance of the procedure, the rustic ladies with minor children of the deceased, filed an application for compensation under the W.C.Act. Determination of compensation under the M.V.Act is different from the W.C.Act. No doubt the Commissioner under the W.C.Act has awarded compensation of Rs.1,59,800/-. After allowing the application, the claimants have filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V.Act. If the claim petition filed under Section 166 of M.V.Act is held to be contrary to Section 167 of Motor Vehicles Act, the claimants will suffer irreparable loss and injury as a paltry amount of Rs.1,59,800/-is awarded under the W.C.Act and the same cannot be just and adequate compensation towards death of the sole bread winner of the family. He was 48 years old and an automobile mechanic drawing a salary of Rs.7,847/-. Keeping in view these facts in mind, we hold that there is no merit in the contention of the Learned Counsel for the appellant on the point of maintainability of claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V.Act. In the decision rendered in GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION case, the compensation awarded under the W.C.Act was deducted from the amount payable under the M.V.Act. The said decision is applicable, on all the fours, to the case on record. In the instant case also the Tribunal has deducted compensation awarded under W.C.Act. Hence, we answer point No. 1 in affirmative. 11. The said decision is applicable, on all the fours, to the case on record. In the instant case also the Tribunal has deducted compensation awarded under W.C.Act. Hence, we answer point No. 1 in affirmative. 11. Point No.2: The Tribunal has determined the compensation payable to the claimants under Section 166 of M.V.Act as under: The claimants have not filed appeal or cross objection for enhancement of compensation. No compensation is awarded towards loss of estate and loss of future prospects. Compensation of Rs7,49,000/-awarded under Section 166 of the M.V.Act is not exorbitant. Hence, we answer point No.2 in the negative. 12. In the result we pass the following: ORDER I) The appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed. II) The registry is directed to transmit the statutory amount in deposit to the Tribunal. III) The appellant is granted two months time from today to deposit the balance compensation amount with the Tribunal.