Back
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :M.S.Shah
Oriental Insurance Company Limited - Appellant
Versus
KISHORBHAI POPATBHAI PARSANA - Respondent
C.R.A. 358 of 1999
Decided On : 03/17/1999
In the impugned communication/order, after referring to the above facts, the Tribunal mentioned that merely because the heirs of the deceased-driver had by misunderstanding or mistake filed the claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal instead of filing the same before the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation, the applicants were not disentitled to get the compensation. The Tribunal further observed that under the amended provisions of the Workmens Compensation Act, the employer and the Insurance Company ought to have deposited the compensation with the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation without any application having been filed and since that was not done, the Insurance Company was liable to pay interest and penalty. Hence, if the Insurance Company did not deposit the amount of compensation under the Workmens Compensation Act before the Tribunal within one month, the Tribunal would take appropriate action against the officer responsible for disobedience and that the order was passed in presence of the learned counsel for the petitioner-Insurance Company before the Tribunal.
[Para 2]
None appears to oppose the order which the Court had already proposed to pass as mentioned in the order dated 4.3.1999. The learned counsel for the petitioner also states that the petitioner-Insurance Company is also agreeable to the order being passed as proposed and to deposit the sum of Rs. 81540/- as the amount of compensation payable to the heirs of Kishorbhai Popatbhai Parsana under the Workmens Compensation Act, alongwith interest as per the provisions of the said Act, but without penalty.
[Para 4]
In view of the above and in the facts and circumstances o the case, it is order as under :
(i)
In exercise of the suo motu power under Art. 227 of the Constitution. It is directed that the Claim Case No. 1589 of 1998 pending before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main) Rakot shall stand transferred to the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation at Rajkot as an application for compensation under the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923.
(ii)
The petitioner-Insurance Company shall deposit the amount of Rs. 81,540/- being the amount of compensation payable to respondents Nos. 1 to 5 under the Workmens Compensation Act, alongwith interest in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. The amount of compensation alongwith interest thereon as aforesaid shall be deposited before the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation at Rajkot, within six weeks from today.
(iii)
It is held that the petitioner Insurance Company is not liable to pay the amount of penalty under the said Act and that the amount of penalty shall be paid by the respondent No. 6- employer.
(vide decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Ved Prakash Garg vs. Premi Devi & Ors., 1998 Accident Claims Journal 1)
(iv)
The amounts to be deposited by the Insurance Company before the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation are apportioned as under :
1., Madhuben Kishorbhai Parsana,,
widow of deceased Kishorbhai Parsana, 40%
2., Minor Ravin Kishorbhai Parsana :
son of the deceased., 15%
3., Minor Dharmesh Kishorbhai Parsana :
Son of the deceased., 15%
4., Popatbhai R. Parsana father of the deceased., 15%
5., Rambaben Popatbhai Parsana.
Mother of the deceased., 15%
(v)
The amounts which will be deposited by the Insurance Company as aforesaid shall be invested in the Fixed Deposits in the names of the concerned heirs with any nationalized bank for a period of five years from the date of investment and in the case of minors the said Fixed Deposit Receipts shall be for the period till the concerned mior attains majority or for five years whichever is longer. The periodical interest accruing on such Fixed Deposits shall be paid to the concerned heirs to whom the amount as aforesaid is apportioned. Madhuben Kishorbhai widow of the deceased shall be permitted to withdraw periodical interest accruing on the FDRs of herself and of her minor sons for maintaining herself and her minor sons.
No encashment of loan or encumbrances on the said Fixed Deposits shall be permitted without epress prior permission of the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation at Rajkot.
(vi)
Respondent No. 6 - the employer M/s. Shreeji Foundry - shall pay 50% of the principal amount of compensation i.e., Rs. 40,0/- as penalty.
(vii)
The impugned communication/order dated 12.2.1999 now does not survive and is quashed and set aside.
[Para 5]
( 1 ) IN this revision application under Sec. 115 of the Civil procedure Code, the petitioner-Insurance Company has challenged the communication/order dated 12-2-1999 from the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Rajkot to the Divisional Manager of the petitioner-Company calling upon the Company to pay compensation under the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act or the Workmens Compensation Act) with interest and penalty to the heirs of deceased-Kishorbhai Popatbhai who was the driver of the motor vehicle involved in a motor accident on 7-3-1994.
( 2 ) THE heirs of the deceased had filed Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 1589 of 1998 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajkot claiming a sum against the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rajkot. of Rs. 3 lacs under Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Tribunal found that since the accident arose on account of negligence of the deceased-driver himself, the application filed by his heirs for compensation could not be tried by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, but the heirs were entitled to get compensation under the provisions of the Workmens Compensation Act. The deceased was driving the motor vehicle in question belonging to respondent No. 6 herein-Parsottambhai Mavjibhai siyani of M/s. Shreeji Foundry in the course of his employment. The deceased was employed as a driver and was holding a valid driving licence. The vehicle was also insured and the insurance policy disclosed that the petitioner-Company had taken premium for insuring the drivers risk also and, therefore, the petitioner-Company was liable to pay compensation under the Workmens Compensation Act. In the impugned communication/order, after referring to the above facts, the Tribunal mentioned that merely because the heirs of the deceased-driver had by misunderstanding or mistake filed the claim petition before the Motor Accident claims Tribunal instead of filing the same before the Commissioner for Workmens compensation, the applicants were not disentitled to get the compensation. The tribunal further observed that under the amended provisions of the Workmens compensation Act, the employer and the Insurance Company ought to have deposited the compensation with the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation without any application having been filed and since that was not done, the Insurance Company was liable to pay interest and penalty. Hence, if the Insurance Company did not deposit the amount of compensation under the Workmens Compensation Act before the Tribunal within one month, the Tribunal would take appropriate action against the officer responsible for disobedience and that the order was passed in presence of the learned Counsel for the petitioner-Insurance Company before the Tribunal. The petitioner-Insurance Company has filed the present revision application to challenge the aforesaid communication/order of the Tribunal.
( 3 ) IN the order dated 4-3-1999 while issuing notice on this revision application for final disposal, this Court clearly mentioned the order which the court proposed to pass subject to hearing the parties to the present proceedings. It was also made clear in the order that if the respondents herein were agreeable to the proposed order being passed, they may not remain present before this Court. The notice was sent in Gujarati as directed by this Court earlier. The respondents are served accordingly.
( 4 ) NONE appears to oppose the order which the Court had already proposed to pass as mentioned in the order dated 4-3-1999. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also states that the petitioner-Insurance Company is also agreeable to the order being passed as proposed and to deposit the sum of Rs. 81,540 as the amount of compensation payable to the heirs of Kishorbhai Popatbhai Parsana under the workmens Compensation Act, along with interest as per the provisions of the said act, without penalty.
( 5 ) IN view
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
