JAGAT NARAYAN, C.J —This is a reference under sec. 27 of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923, by the Workmens Compensation Commissioner, Udaipur.

2. The relevant facts are these. One Chunilal was driving passengers bus No. R. T.Y. 1397 belonging to Navin Kumar Verma along a public road when it collided with a truck. As a result of this accident Chunilal died. His widow Smt. Kamladevi and other dependants filed the present claim under the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923, before the Workmens Compensation Commissioner Udaipur. Notice was issued to the insurer, namely, the New Great Insurance Company of India Limited as contemplated by sec 96(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. It filed a written statement in which none of the facts mentioned in the claim application was admitted. Navin Kumar filed a written statement admitting all the facts in the claim petition except clause (ii) regarding relationship of the claimants with the deceased for want of knowledge and clause (v) regarding the notice of the accident having been served on him by the petitioner

3. Before the learned Workmens Compensation Commissioner it was contended that the insurer had a right to take only the statutory defences as provided under sec. 96 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. On the other hand the insurer argued that he had the right to take all possible defences as an ordinary defendant. It was urged that sec. 95 and 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, are not applicable to the proceedings under the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923, unless the employer has become insolvent or has made composition or scheme of arrangement with his creditors or is a company wound up as provided under sec. 14 of the Workmens Compensation Act. The following questions of law have been referred to this Court by the Workmens Compensation Commissioner :

(1) Whether sec. 95 and 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, are applicable to the cases under the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923;

(2) whether the insurer has a right to take only the statutory defences as provided in sec. 96(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939) as per 1959 S.C. 1331 and whether he can take all the defences as an ordinary defendant; and

(3) whether insurer Company can be made a party and a decree can be passed against it under the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The only two reported cases which throw some light on the point are the following :

R.B. Moondra & Co, vs. Mst. Bhanwari(l), N.A. Ins. Co. vs. Kulwanti Devi(2)

The Motor Vehicles Act contains comprehensive provisions for recovery of compensation in respect of accidents involving the death or bodily injury to persons arising out of use of motor vehicles in a public place. This will include claims under the Workmens Compensation Act provided the accident had taken place in a public place If the accident has not taken place in a public place then the remedy of the workmen is only under the Workmens Compensation Act. A provision similar to that contains in sec. 14 of the Workmens Compensation Act is contained in sec. 97 of the Motor Vehicles Act. A perusal of sec. 95 makes it quite clear that claims by employees under the Workmens Compensation Act are entertain able in respect of accidents from motor vehicles in a public place subject to the following limitations contained in sec 95(2) :

(a) where the vehicle is a goods vehicle, a limit of twenty thousand rupees in all, including the liabilities, if any, arising under the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923, in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, employees (other than the driver), not exceeding six in number, being carried in the vehicle;

(b) Where the vehicle is a vehicle in which passengers are carried for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment........ ...... compensation can be claimed in respect of the death of or bodily injury to, employees including driver not exceeding six in number, being carried in the vehicle.

5. Sec. 96(1

Click Here to Read the rest of this document