The court held that claims under the Motor Vehicles Act are maintainable even if the deceased was covered under the Employees' State Insurance Act, provided the injury is not an 'employment injury'.

JUDGMENT :

(Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.)

Heard Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company and Ms.P.Anuradha, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4/claimants.

2. The New India Assurance Company Limited is the appellant in the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(in short 'the M.V.Act'). The appellant is challenging the award dated 05.02.2024 in M.V.O.P.No.455 of 2018 (in short 'MVOP') passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam(in short 'the Tribunal').

The Tribunal allowed the MVOP.

Facts:

3. The respondents 1 to 4/claimants herein filed M.V.O.P under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation on account of the death of late Sarika Narasinga Rao in the motor accident dated 12.01.2018 at about 6.45 a.m. caused by the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing No.AP 25 W 9929 by its driver, the 5^th respondent herein; owned by the 6^th respondent herein and insured with the present appellant, who was the 3^rd respondent in the claim petition.

4. The claim petition was filed by four claimants including the widow, who died during pendency of the claim petition.

5. The owner and the driver of the offending vehicle remained ex parte before the Tribunal.

6. The insurance company filed counter, inter alia denying the averments of the claim petition and submitting that the claimants be put to strict proof of their case. It pleaded that the claimants were not entitled for the compensation nor for the interest.

7. The insurance company filed additional counter, pleading that the dependents of the deceased received benefits under the Employees‟ State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short 'E.S.I.Act'). So,the claimants were not entitled for any compensation under the M.V.Act in view of Section 53 of the E.S.I Act.The insurance company was therefore not liable to pay any compensation.

8. The Tribunal framed the following issues:

“ 1. Whether the deceased Sarika Narasinga Rao died in road accident on 12.01.2018 at about 06.45 hours at Convent Junction, Visakhapatnam due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No. AP 25 W 9929 for which 1^st respondent is the driver, the 2^nd respondent is the owner and the 3^rdrespondent is the Insurer?

2. Whether the petitioners 1 to 4 are entitled for compensation from the respondents for the death of Sarika Narasinga Rao? if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?

3. To what relief? ”

Finding of the Tribunal:

9. The claimants examined the daughter of the deceased as PW.1 andCh.Govind, eye witness of the accident, as PW.2 andM.Praveen Kumar, the H.R.Manager ofM/s.Sravan Shipping Service Private Limited, Visakhapatnam, as PW.3. The documentsExs.A1 to A6; X1 and X2 were marked on their behalf.

10. The insurance company examined Rufus Clement Kondru,as RW.1 and Panda Raghunadh, as RW.2 and marked the documents as Ex.B1 and Exs.X3 to X6.

11. The Tribunal, on consideration of the evidence, oral and documentary, recorded finding on issue No.1, that the driver of the offending vehicle, AP 25W 9929, driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner, caused the accident in which the deceased received multiple injuries and died.

12. On the aspect of the claimants entitled or not for compensation under the M.V.Act in view of Section 53 of the E.S.I.Act, the Tribunal applied the judgment in Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., v. Anushaya, [(2023 ACJ 1223)] of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, and held that Section 53 of the E.S.I. Act was no bar to file a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V.Act.

13. On issue No.2, the Tribunal determined, in total, a compensation of Rs.29,28,750/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the claim petition till its deposit. The respondents 1 to 3 in the claim petition were, jointly and severally, held liable to pay the compensation amount. The Tribunal determined the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.19,000/- and R