Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (SHILLONG BENCH)
Tinlianthang Vaiphei, J.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. - Appellants
Vs.
Sudip Ranjan Deb and Ors. - Respondent
Decided On: 20.04.2007
Workmen's Compensation Act - Claim Petition - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166 - Section 167 - [W.C. Act, 1923] - [Section 166 of M.V. Act] - The court discussed the provisions of Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which pertains to the option regarding claims for compensation in certain cases. The court examined the legal position established by the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mastan (2006) ILLJ 704 SC, emphasizing the principle of election of remedies and the exclusiveness of the jurisdiction of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The court also addressed the possibility of the tortfeasor escaping liability and the claimant's right to proceed against the insurance company for recovery of damages. The judgment delved into the question of whether the claimant, who had been paid compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, could exercise the option to abandon the claim petition under the Act and proceed with the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The court referred to the finality of the order/award and the claimant's exhaustion of the option to elect the claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act. The court also discussed the binding nature of the decision rendered in R.F.A. No. 1 (SH) of 2004 and its precedential value.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent No. 1 filed a claim petition under the Workmen's Compensation Act and a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act following a car accident. The court addressed the issue of whether the claimant, who had been paid compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, could proceed with the claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the claimant was not entitled to compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, based on the provisions of Section 167 and the legal position established by the Apex Court. The court held that the claimant had exhausted the option to elect the claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act and that the decision in R.F.A. No. 1 (SH) of 2004 was not binding on the appellant.
Issues: The issues involved the interpretation of Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the claimant's right to proceed with the claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, and the finality of the order/award under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the legal position established by the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mastan (2006) ILLJ 704 SC, the provisions of Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and the claimant's exhaustion of the option to elect the claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the impugned judgment/award and order were set aside. The claimant was not entitled to compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, and the statutory deposit made by the appellant was to be refunded. The parties were to bear their respective costs throughout.
T. Vaiphei, J.
1. This M.A.C. Appeal is directed against the award in respect of respondent No. 1 in the common judgment and award dated 16.6.2006 and the order dated 4.7.2006 in M.A.C. Case Nos. 65 to 68 of 2003 and M.A.C. Case No. 17 of 2004.
2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 29.11.2003, when the respondent No. 1 was driving Maruti car No. ML 05-D 1228 from Shillong to Guwahati along with the owner of the said vehicle and her relatives as occupants, one Tata Sumo vehicle bearing No. AS 25-B 1146 coming from the opposite direction dashed against his car at a place called 17th Mile, Byrnihat. As a result of the accident, all the occupants of the car, including him, sustained injuries. The respondent No. 1 filed a claim petition under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 ('W.C. Act' for short) being W.C. Case No. M.18/WC/20 of 2003 before the learned Commissioner, East Khasi Hills, Shillong for payment of compensation from the owner of Maruti car driven by him, i.e., the respondent No. 3 and the respondent No. 4, which is the insurer of Maruti car. Learned Commissioner by his judgment and award dated 18.3.2004 assessed compensation amount at Rs. 1,15,284, interest at Rs. 2,305 and the medical expenditure incurred by him at Rs. 1,00,000, the total whereof comes to Rs. 2,17,589 and directed New India Assurance Co. Ltd., i.e., respondent No. 4 herein to pay the same to the respondent. This judgment and award was promptly challenged by respondent No. 4 in R.F.A. No. 1 (SH) of 2004 before this Court.
3. In the meantime, the respondent No. 1 also filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the M.V. Act') being M.A.C. Case No. 17 of 2004 before the learned Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Shillong claiming compensation for the injuries caused to him in the same accident from the owner of Tata Sumo vehicle bearing No. AS 25-B 1146, i.e., the respondent No. 2, which was insured with the appellant insurance company. While this claim petition was pending before the Tribunal, this Court dismissed R.F.A. No. 1 (SH) of 2004 by the judgment and order dated 2.6.2004. While upholding the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, this Court, nevertheless, observed therein that "since M.A.C. Case No. 17 of 2004 is now pending before the Tribunal, the petitioner shall be entitled to compensation as provided under the Motor Vehicles Act against the tortfeasors and, as such, the amount paid to the petitioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act shall be adjusted against the amount to be awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal". This Court further observed that the petitioner should not withdraw himself from prosecuting with the said M.A.C. Case No. 17 of 2004 pending before the Tribunal and in case the petitioner without any reason withdrew himself from the said case, the Tribunal should allow the present appellant to prosecute the case by stepping into the place of the respondent-claimant in the case. The grievance of the appellant herein on this aspect of the matter will be examined shortly hereafter. Anyway, to complete the narrative of the case, the Tribunal thereafter proceeded with the trial of the M.A.C. Case Nos. 65 to 68 of 2003 and disposed of all the cases by the impugned common judgment and award by awarding a sum of Rs. 4,33,248 with simple interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of the claim petition in favour of the respondent No. 1. The Tribunal also awarded compensation of varying amounts to the other claimants therein, with which we are not concerned in this appeal.
4. The Tribunal recorded the findings that respondent No. 1 was the driver of Maruti car and was earning Rs. 3,500 per month by way of salary; that he was declared to be disabled to the extent of 40 per cent in the lower limb which incapacitated him from driving a vehicle and, as such, should be duly compensated for t
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
