PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 11.04.2012 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, he State Commission in Appeal No. 96 of 2012 Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corpn. & Anr. Vs. Kuldeep Singh by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent father Shri Amarjeet Singh was travelling in Bus No. RJ 14 9302 of OP/petitioner on 30.07.2008 from Nasirabad to Beawar after purchasing ticket no. 0070621. The said bus met with an accident near Annaporna Factory when the vehicle No. GJ 02 Z 2081 was coming from other side and complainant father sustained injuries and died on 31.07.2008. As per agreement, complainant was entitled to receive Rs.50,000/- from OP. Inspite of notice, payment has not been made. It was further submitted that claim before Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (MACT), Sikar was pending and order granting interim relief has been complied with, but that amount is not to be adjusted. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that prior to this complaint claim petition has already been filed before MACT, Sikar and as per order of the Tribunal, Rs.25,000/- has already been paid to the complainant. Complainant is entitled to compensation only from MACT, Sikar and not from any other court. It was further submitted that as per Traveler Accident Compensation Scheme, 2000, any amount given as interim relief is to be adjusted from final amount granted by MACT and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint and directed OP to pay Rs.50,000/- in addition to Rs.10,500/- for mental agony etc. Petitioner filed appeal before State Commission and learned State Commission dismissed appeal of petitioner against which, this revision petition has been filed. 3. None appeared for the respondent even after service and he was proceeded ex-parte. 4. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused record. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has neither charged any amount for insurance nor Consumer Fora had jurisdiction to decide complaint; even then, learned District Forum committed illegality in allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal of petitioner and allowing appeal of respondent; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside and complaint be dismissed. 6. It is not disputed that complainant father while travelling in bus of OP met with an accident and on account of injuries, complainant father died and complainant has filed claim before MACT Sikar. 7. The core question to be decided in this case is whether District forum had any jurisdiction to entertain complaint and whether petitioner charged any amount for insurance of the passenger travelling in the bus. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Consumer Fora had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as held by Honle Apex Court in (1995) 2 SCC 479 Chairman, Thiruvalluvar Transport Corpn. Vs. Consumer Protection Council. In the aforesaid case, the Honle Apex Court after referring Section 175 M.V. Act held that Claim Tribunal constituted for the area under Motor Vehicle Act had jurisdiction to entertain any claim for compensation arising out of the fatal accident and Consumer Protection Act is a general law and general law must yield to the special law. It was further held that National Commission was wrong in exercising jurisdiction and awarding compensation pertaining to fatal accident arising out of use of motor vehicle. 9. In the light of aforesaid judgment, it becomes clear that Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction to entertain complaint arising out of fatal accident while travelling in vehicle. 10. As complaint was not maintainable before District Forum, District Forum committed error in granting compensation and learned State Commission further committed error in enhancing compensation and complaint is liable to be dismissed. 11. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that amount charged by the petitioner was towards fund established under Section 146 (3) of Motor Vehicle Act, as the petitioner has not taken insurance coverage of their vehicle. As per Traveler Accident Compensation Scheme, 2000, any amount under the scheme was payable only towards award passed by MACT. Thus, it becomes clear that whatever the amount charged by petitioner included in the passenger fare was not towards insurance of the passenger, but was towards contribution to fund established by petitioner for meeting liability arising out of awards passed by MACT and in such circumstances, respondent was not entitled to any amount in addition to compensation awarded by MACT, Sikar and impugned order and order of District Forum are liable to be set aside. 12. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 11.04.2012 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, he State Commission in Appeal No. 96 of 2012 Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corpn. & Anr. Vs. Kuldeep Singh is set aside and complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.