The main legal point established in the judgment is that Motor Accident Claims Tribunals cannot convert itself into the Court of Commissioner under the Employee’s Compensation Act.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Mohan Goel, J

By way of this appeal, the appellant/Insurance Company has prayed for setting aside of the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (CBI Court), Shimla, H.P. in MAC Petition No. 1-S/2 of 2019, titled as Susheela and others vs. Simi Nanda and another, dated 18.01.2023.

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this appeal are that the respondent-Claimants filed a claim petition before learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, praying for compensation on account of the death of Shri Satish Kumar, the predecessor-ininterest of the claimants, who unfortunately died in the course of his employment as a Driver on an Oil Tanker bearing Registration No. HP-51B-0710. Record reveals that the unfortunate death of Shri Satish Kumar took place on 23.06.2018, at around 3:30 p.m. at place Raipur Rani Naraingarh road near Sonu Dhaba, where the deceased after parking his vehicle, noticed fire at the bottom portion of the tanker and while trying to extinguish the fire, suffered multiple injuries and as a result whereof, he died on 28.06.2018.

3. The claim petition was resisted inter alia on the ground that the same was not maintainable under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.

4. On the basis of respective pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal:-

1. Whether Sh. Satish Kumar, died in a motor vehicle accident of Oil Tanker bearing registration No. HP-51B-0710, which occurred on 23.06.2018 at 3:30 p.m., at place Raipur Rani, Naraingarh Road, Tehsil Panchkula, Haryana, due to the negligence of its owner i.e. respondent No. 1 Smt. Simi Nand, on a public way? OPP

2. If issue No. 1 is prove in affirmative whether the petitioners are entitled for the grant of compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP

3. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR

4. Whether the petitioners have no cause of action to file the petition? OPR

5. Whether the deceased was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of alleged accident to drive the aforesaid Oil Tanker: OPR2

6. Whether the aforesaid Oil Tanker was driven in contravention to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy at the time of alleged occurrence? OPR-2

7. Relief.

5. On the strength of the evidence, which was led by the parties, in support of their respective contentions, the issues so framed were decided as under:-

Issue No. 1 : Yes, but not because of negligence of R-1.

Issue No. 2 : Yes, from respondent No. 2.

Issue No. 3: : See findings.

Issue No. 4 : No.

Issue No. 5 : No.

Issue No. 6 :No.

Relief : Petition is allowed as per operative part of the award.

6. While deciding Issue No. 1, learned Tribunal observed that though an employee of respondent No. 1 before the learned Tribunal had died while trying to extinguish fire but said event was not proved to be on account of negligence of the employer/ respondent No.1. Hence, Issue No. 1 is answered accordingly. In other words, learned Tribunal returned the findings that the unfortunate accident, in which deceased lost his life, was not on account of negligence of the owner of the vehicle.

7. Thereafter, while deciding Issue No. 2, learned Tribunal by relying upon the judgment of this Court in FAO No. 188 of 2015, titled as Reliance General Insurance Company Limited vs. Smt. Shakuntla Devi and others, went on to grant compensation to the claimants by applying the provisions of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, after observing that this Court had also done so in FAO No. 188 of 2015 (supra).

8. Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that once the learned Tribunal held and rightly so, that the death of the deceased was not on account of negligence of the owner of the vehicle, then, the claim petition was liable to be dismissed and the learned Tribunal was having no jurisdiction in law to grant compensation to the claimants by applying the provisions of the Employee’s Compensation Act and by conferring upon itself the jurisdiction of a