JUDGMENT- D.R. DHANUKA, J.:-This appeal involves consideration of important question of law relating to interpretation and application of section 110-AA of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.

2. This is an appeal by the original applicants against an order dated 8th January, 1986 passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmens Compensation in Workmens Compensation Case No. (LCS) 1 of 1980. By the impugned order, the learned Commissioner dismissed the above referred application as not maintainable in law by invoking section 110-AA of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.

3. Section 110-AA of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 reads as under :

"110-AA. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923), where the death of or bodily injury to any person gives rise to a claim for compensation under this Act and also under the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) the person entitled to compensation (may, without prejudice to the provisions of Chapter VII-A claim such compensation) under either of those Acts but not under both".

4. One Arjun Mahadeo Salunkhe died as a result of an accident which took place on 31st March, 1980. At the time of the accident the deceased was in the employment of respondent No. 1. On 20th October, 1983, Smt. Neelabai Mahadeo Salunkhe (i.e. the mother of the deceased) on behalf of herself and two of the brothers of the deceased by name Kumar Mahadev Salunkhe and Babasaheb Salunkhe made a claim for compensation before the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Sangli, numbered as Motor Accident Claim No. 35 of 1980. By the application made under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the said applicants claimed compensation of Rs. 60,000/- in view of death of the deceased Arjun Mahadeo caused as a result of the tractor accident which took place on 31st March, 1980. Shri Laxmanrao A. Chavan, Shri Shamrao Tatoba Pawar, the New India Insurance Company Ltd. and The Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. were impleaded as party respondents in the said application. At the trial of the said application filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sangli, various issues were framed. The first two issues framed at the hearing of the said application are reproduced hereinafter.

"1. Whether the applicants prove that the accident which resulted in the death of Arjun Mahadeo Salunkhe was caused due to rash and negligent driving of tractor No. MTK-9130 by opponent No. 1 (i.e. Laxmanrao A. Chavan) on the noon of 31-3-1980?"

"2. Whether opponent No. 2, owner of the tractor, proves that the said Arjun Mahadeo Salunkhe was himself driving the tractor at the time of the accident?"

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal answered issue No. 1 in the negative and issue No. 2 in the affirmative. In para 14 of its judgment, the Tribunal observed that the burden of proof that the deceased had died due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor by some other person i.e. other than the deceased, was on the applicants themselves. The Tribunal further observed that the applicants had not led any evidence to discharge their burden. The Tribunal held that the deceased himself might be driving the tractor as shown in the police panchanama relating to the above referred accident. In the result, the Tribunal dismissed the said application for compensation made by the applicants (appellants herein) under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.

5. In the above referred Workmens Compensation Case (LCS) No. 1 of 1980, the appellants are claiming compensation from one or the other respondents under Workmens Compensation Act, 1923. The question before the learned Commissioner was as to whether the said claim was barred under section 110-AA of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 in view of the appellants having already filed the above referred claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sangli vide Motor Accident Claim No. 35 of 1980 and the said claim having been dismissed by the Tribunal.

6. Section 110-AA was inserted in the Mo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document