The right to indemnity under Section 13 of the Workmen's Compensation Act is a statutory right that can be enforced in a civil court. The provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, including Section 110-F, which bar the jurisdiction of civil courts in certain cases, are not applicable to claims against strangers arising out of the use of motor vehicles.

ALLADI KUPPUSWAMI, J.

( 1 ) THE facts and circumstances which gave rise to this appeal have been stated in our judgment in A. S. No. 519 of 1970. For the purpose of convenience they may be briefly repeated.

( 2 ) ON 20/01/1962 there was a collision between a goods train and a lorry belonging to the second plaintiff in O. S. 4 of 1967, Sub-Court, Adoni. The lorry was insured with the first plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff is that the lorry was crossing a railway gate when it was struck by a goods train. The lorry was damaged and the driver of the lorry and its cleaner and one of the coolies who were in the lorry died as a result of the injuries sustained during the accident. Another coolie who was in the lorry has lost his right arm and two other coolies received minor injuries. The case of the plaintiffs is that the accident was a result of the negligence of the employees of the railway. They also stated that a sum of Rs. 3,500 had been deposited before the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation under the provisions of the Workmens Compensation Act in regard to the claim preferred by the legal representatives of the lorry driver. Another amount of Rs. 1,500 was deposited in regard to the claim of the legal representative of the coolie and Rs. 1,800 in regard to the claim of the legal representatives of the cleaner and a sum of Rs. 1587-60 regarding the claim of the injured persons. In the plaint, the plaintiffs claimed that they are entitled to the recovery of these sums also together with interest thereon.

( 3 ) THE court below held that the accident was due to the negligence of the employees of the railway and the plaintiffs were entitled to a decree for a sum of Rs. 14,000 for the damages sustained to the lorry. It however, negatived the claim regarding the amounts deposited before the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation.

( 4 ) THIS appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs against the dismissal of the suit in so far as it relates to the claim for recovery of the amounts of compensation deposited before the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation.

( 5 ) THE amounts in question were deposited in the following circumstances. The legal representatives of the cleaner end the deceased coolie made a claim under the Workmens Compensation Act on 13-12-1962 and the legal representatives of the driver made a claim on 16-12-1962. The injured coolies made their claims a little later. The claims were made against the owner, the second plaintiff, but as the second plaintiff had insured his lorry with the first plaintiff, against third party risk, the Insurance Company applied to the Commissioner to be impleaded as party and deposited the aforesaid amounts of compensation. The payments of compensations are proved by Exs. A-43 and A-19 to A-21. Hence there can be no doubt that these amounts were deposited before the Commissioner.

( 6 ) THE court below however, dismissed the suit in regard to these amounts on the ground that there is nothing to show that the Commissioner had conducted any enquiry as contemplated by the Act to see whether the amounts which were deposited were in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 of the Act. Unless it was proved that there was a duty cast upon the employer to pay those amounts, the Insurance Company cannot have any right to reimbursement by merely paying some amounts before any regular enquiry is made. That apart, the material before the court does not prove that the persons who died and whose heirs were paid the compensation were workmen as defined by Section 2 (1) (n) of the Act and that they were working at the place mentioned in Schedule II, clause XXV of the Act. In the absence of details as to the nature of employment, the place where the accident took place being within the precincts as postulated by Schedule II, Clause 25, it is difficult to hold whether the provisions of the Workmens Compensation Act could be invoked.

( 7 ) WE find it difficult to agree with the above reasoning and conclu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document