O). jhjgwhe claimants (Wifeandfwechildren), being legal heirs/dependents o the deceased, filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor ivw V,ehieles Act, 1988 for award of a total compensation of Rs. 22,00,000/—, wherein the Claim petitionwas dismiSsed by the l Tiribunal, holding that the accident had occurred due to own mistake of the deceased, who was driving the bus. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, peusedr the rcord and the findings of the Tribunal. e H aving rardeg to the facts situation and the evidecen on record we 2 s. ‘ are of the opionni that since the decease d — Driver, himself wsa rash l l and negligent, the claim petitoni filed under Section 1 66 of the Act, l 188was not at all maintainable because fo r the cmlai petition file d P‘ uinder Section 166 of the Act, 1988 the claimnats are require d to proverashandnegligentdriving. In the instant case the deceased himself was the Driver of the bus and it is held by the Tribalun that the deceadse himself was rash and negligent and as such the Claims Trnaibul has wrongly held that the claim petition was maintainable. I n view of the above, we hold that the claim peitiont itself was not mntinaiaable before the Claims Tribunal under Section 166 of the M otor Vehicles Ac t, 1988. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in patr and the impugned award dated 4. 10.2002 is set aside. No order as to csts.0 Since the claim pe tition itself was not maintainaebl before the Claism Trnibual under Section 166 of the Act, 1988, as such the cltsaiman cannot be kept remediless. Therefore, with a view that the claimants should not e left remediless, it is directed that this order will not debar the claimants to approach appropriate forum seeking remedy available under the provisions of law.
