Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Anoop Kumar Dhand, J.
Hanif – Appellant
Versus
Ramesh Bharti & Ors. – Respondents
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1819 of 2004
Decided On : 18-05-2022
MV Act - Claim petition rejected under MV Act, 1988 - Section 167 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which provides the claimant with the option to file a claim petition either under the provisions of the Act of 1988 or under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The court highlighted the doctrine of election and emphasized that the claimant has the right to choose the appropriate remedy under the mentioned Acts.
Fact of the Case:
The claimant, who was injured while working as a Khalasi/cleaner on a vehicle, filed a claim petition seeking compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Tribunal rejected the claim petition on the ground that the injured was working under the employment of the vehicle owner and directed the claimant to file an application under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Tribunal erred in rejecting the claim petition solely on the ground of the claimant's employment status and emphasized the claimant's right to choose the appropriate remedy under the relevant Acts.
Issues: The issues involved the rejection of the claim petition by the Tribunal based on the claimant's employment status and the claimant's right to choose the appropriate remedy under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the claimant has the right to choose the appropriate remedy under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, as provided under Section 167 of the Act of 1988. The court emphasized the doctrine of election and the claimant's right to avail only one remedy and not both.
Final Decision: The court quashed and set aside the impugned judgment and order, remitting the matter back to the Tribunal for deciding the claim petition afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to both sides.
JUDGMENT
1. This misc. appeal under Section 173 of the MV Act, has been directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 08.07.2004 passed by the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Addl. District and Sessions Judge) (Fast Track), Beawar (Raj.) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in Claim case No.384/2004, by which the claim petition filed by the claimant- appellant has been rejected on the ground that the injured was working under the employment of respondent No.2 i.e. registered owner of jeep No. RJ-01-P-2196, hence, he is not entitled to get compensation under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, but liberty was given to the claimant-appellant to file application under the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.
2. Facts, in brief, of the case are that the injured was Khalasi/cleaner on vehicle No. RJ-01-P-2196. On 15.03.1999, he sustained injuries while repairing the radiator, when driver started the vehicle suddenly, in a rash and negligent manner and due to which jeep started and claimant-appellant sustained injuries in his leg. For the above act, FIR No.116/99 was registered with Police Station Beawar City for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 337 IPC and after investigation charge-sheet submitted against the driver of the jeep for the above-mentioned offences.
3. The injured-claimant submitted the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.2,20,000/- against the driver/owner and Insurance Company of the vehicle before the Tribunal. The Tribunal issued notices to the respondents. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 refused to receive the summons and respondent No.3 filed its reply and denied the averments made in the claim petition and submitted that excess compensation has been claimed.
4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed four issues and decided issue Nos. 1 to 3 in favour of the claimant. But while deciding issue No.4, the Tribunal rejected the claim petition of the claimant-injured by observing that the injured was working under the employment of owner of the vehicle. Hence, he is not entitled to get compensation under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'Act of 1988'). However, liberty was given to him to file claim petition under the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'Act of 1923').
5. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award dated 08.07.2004, instant appeal has been preferred.
6. Counsel for the appellant submitted that as per the provisions contained under Section 167 of the Act of 1988, the Tribunal could not have rejected the claim petition because the claimant has both options to file claim petition either under 'the Act of 1988' or under the 'Act of 1923'. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Prembai Patel & Ors. reported in 2005 ACJ 1323 and the judgment of this Court in the case of Devendra & anr. Vs. Sobhag Bai & Ors. reported in 2007 ACJ 877.
7. Learned counsel further argued that in view of the statutory provisions contained under Section 167 of the Act of 1988 and in view of settled proposition of law, the matter requires reconsideration.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the appellant and submitted that no illegality has been committed by the Tribunal while rejecting the claim petition.
9. Counsel for the respondent further submitted that while rejecting the claim petition of the claimant, liberty was granted to him to approach the Commissioner, Workmens Compensation to get claim under the Act of 1923. Hence, no interference is required by this Court.
10. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
11. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to quote Section 167 of the Act of 1988, which reads as under:-
"167. Option regarding claims for compensation in certain cases.- Notwithstanding anything contained in the Workmen's Compens
AI
Under Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claimants can only pursue compensation under either the Motor Vehicles Act or the Workmen Compensation Act, not both for the same incident.
Point of law : Reference Court is required to decide the respective References afresh by permitting the parties including the claimants to lead their evidence and thereafter to determine the prayer f....
Accident claim - Tribunal by total non application of mind to the settled position of law has not converted the claim filed under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act to a claim filed under the prov....
The court clarified the principles governing the election provided under Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the corresponding bar, stating that the claimants cannot claim compensation un....
Claimants can only pursue compensation under one act for the same incident, as established by Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
An employee receiving compensation under Chapter X of the M.V. Act retains the option to seek compensation under the 1923 Act or the M.V. Act.
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
