Honble KAPOOR, J. – The petitioner claimant filed a claim petition before the Workmens Compensation Commissioner, Tonk in respect of death of her daughter Hukma who died in an accident on 28th January 1991 by truck No. R.J.E. 8221. The petitioners contention was that her daughter Hukma was working on the said truck for loading and unloading and was in employment of the truck owner, who is non petitioner No. 1. The accident occurred during the course of her employ- ment as such the claim was filed before the Workmens Compensation Commissioner (herein after referred to as the Commissioner). The petitioner applied for grant of interim compensation and this has been disallowed by the Commissioner by order dated 18th December 1992. It has been observed that prima facie it has not been satisfied that the deceased was an employee of the non- petitioner hence, no order can be passed u/s 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (for short M.V.Act).

(2). A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the non petitioners about the maintainability of the revision petition. According to him the Commissioner is not any Court subordinate to the High Court as section 115 C.P.C. only covers the Civil courts in normal hierarchy of courts. This matter was decided by a Full Bench of this Court in Bashir Khan vs. Ranger, Social Vaniki & Ors. (1) a question was framed by a Single Judge which was referred to a Larger Bench and while answering the question whether the Commissioner under the workmens Compensation is a court subordinate to the High Court and as such revision lies against the order passed by the Commissioner, it was held that revision petition under Section 115 C.P.C. was not maintainable against the order passed by the Commissioner under the Workmens Compensation as the Commissioner was not a Court subordinate to the High Court for purposes of Sec. 115 C.P.C. However, in the alternative it was prayed that the revision petition may be treated as a writ petition u/Arts. 226/227 of the Constitution of India and this prayer was allowed and the petition was decided on merits. In view of this Full Bench decision, the present revision petition is not maintainable .Hence the learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that this may be treated as a writ petition and for this the learned Counsel for the respondents have no objection. Accordingly I proceed with this petition as a writ petition.

(3). The relevant provisions in regard to award of interim compensation are contained in Sections 140 and 143 of the MV Act. These provisions read as under:–

"140 : Liability to pay compensation in certain cases on the principle of no fault:- (1) Where death or permanent disablement of any person has resulted from an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle or motor vehicles the owner of the vehicle shall or as the case may be the owners of the vehicles shall jointly and severally be liable to pay compensation in respect of such death or disablement in accordance with the provisions of this section.

(2) The amount of compensation which shall be payable under sub- section (1) in respect of the death of any person shall be a fixed sum of twenty five thousand rupees and the amount of compensation payable under that sub-section in respect of the permanent disablement of any person shall be a fixed sum of twelve thousand rupees.

(3) In any claim for compensation under sub section (1) the claimant shall not be required to plead and establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful Act neglect or default of the owner or owners of the vehicle or vehicle concerned or of any other person.

(4) A claim for compensation under sub section (1) shall not be de- feated by reason of any wrongful act, neglect or default of the person in respect of whose death or permanent disablement the claim has been made nor shall the quantum of compensation recoverable in respect of such death or permanent disablem

Click Here to Read the rest of this document