view that there is a bar for awarding compensation more particularly, under the Workmen Compensation Act, as stated above. The Tribunal has awarded compensation by invoking the Workmen Compensation Act is not proper hence the same is not sustainable. Further, in this case, it is an admitted case of the claimants that the tortfeasor in this case is an unknown vehicle, since the compensation awarded under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, based on the fault liability, in the absence of tortfeasor, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. Hence, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, no compensation shall be payable to the claimants herein. Even if this Court considered that the deceased in this case, steps into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle, he is entitled to get Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation. But admittedly, in this case, the deceased herein has not steps into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle, since he is an employee of the third respondent Company. However, admittedly he sustained injury only during the course of his employment, hence this Court is of the view that he is entitled to get compensation only under the ESI Act which provides separate Scheme for getting compensation.
