Back
2017 Supreme(J&K) 45
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
Ramalingam Sudhakar, J.
Nirmala Devi and Others – Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and Others – Respondents
CIMA No. 11 of 2006 & MP No. 01 of 2016 in CIMA No. 12 of 2006
Decided On : 07-02-2017
For the Petitioner: Mr. R.P. Sapolia.
For the Respondent: Mr. Suneel Malhotra.
Claimants can choose to claim compensation under either the Motor Vehicle Act or the Workmen's Compensation Act, but not under both, as per Section 167 of the Motor Vehicle Act.
Headnote:
Workmen's Compensation Act - Motor Vehicle Act - Section 167
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the legal heirs of deceased employees of the GREF Department who were involved in a fatal accident while traveling in an Army vehicle. The legal heirs initially accepted compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act but later filed claim petitions under the Motor Vehicle Act seeking higher compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the claimants were entitled to pursue their claim under the Motor Vehicle Act as per Section 167, despite initially accepting compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The court set aside the Tribunal's order and directed it to adjudicate the claims on merits.
Issues: The main issue was whether the claimants could pursue their claim under the Motor Vehicle Act after initially accepting compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Section 167 of the Motor Vehicle Act, which allows claimants to choose to claim compensation under either the Motor Vehicle Act or the Workmen's Compensation Act, but not under both. The court also emphasized that the claimants' acceptance of interim compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act did not preclude them from pursuing their claim under the Motor Vehicle Act.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, the Tribunal's order was set aside, and the Tribunal was directed to adjudicate the claims on merits. The amount deposited in the Registry was to be returned to the Union of India along with interest.
MP No. 01/2016 in CIMA No. 12/2006
For the reasons stated in the application, same is allowed. Tribunal to carry out the amendment in the cause title of the award.
MP disposed of.
CIMA Nos. 11/2006, 12/2006
1. These two appeals have been filed by the legal heirs of the deceased Panna Lal and Devi Singh, employees of GREF Department. The accident in this case happened in the following manner:
2. On 26.05.2002 an Army vehicle (Tipper) bearing No. 98E-66285 of 118 RCC was proceeding from Gool Ghulab Garh. The vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, it turned turtle and met with an accident. In the offending vehicle on the date of accident fourteen persons were travelling, out of which eleven persons died and three of them suffered grievous injuries. Since they were working in the Defence Department, therefore, for undertaking the funeral and other charges, meager amount was granted to the widows of deceased Panna Lal and Devi Singh, so as to enable them to perform the last rites of the deceased for which acknowledgment has been issued in presence of village sarpanch and other local residents. Along with the aforesaid acknowledgment, a document has also been annexed, which shows that the legal heirs/ widows of the deceased have agreed not to proceed before the Tribunal. The said document bears the thumb impressions of the widows (Nirmala Devi and Dei Devi).
3. Learned counsel for Union of India relies upon the document dated 28.05.2002, stating that appellants had given an option that the claimants wished to receive the compensation under the provisions of Workmen’s Compensation Act and not under the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act. A small amount of Rs. 1000/- vide receipt dated 30.05.2002 has been granted to the widows/claimants. From the statement of Shri Suneel Malhotra, learned counsel for the Union of India, it appears that consequent upon the widows/legal heirs accepted to get compensation under the provisions of Workmen’s Compensation Act. Certain amounts were deposited before the Workmen Commissioner under the provisions of Workmen’s Compensation Act. Out of the four widows, two of them accepted the proposal and took the amount in terms of the Workmen Compensation Act. Appellants, namely, Dei Devi and Nirmala Devi, did not receive the amount of Rs. 1,56,577/- and 1,94,226/- deposited in the office of Assistant Labour Commissioner, Kishtwar under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Instead the two appellants chose to file claim petitions before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal seeking compensation stating that two dead persons, namely, Panna Lal and Devi Singh died due to the rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, i.e. Army Tipper. Hence, they are entitled to just compensation in terms of the Motor Vehicles Act.
4. An interim award dated 08.01.2003 was passed by the Tribunal and an amount of Rs. 50,000/- each was paid to the appellants/widows. Thereupon, the Union of India filed OWP No. 132/2004 pleading that the compensation amount has been deposited under the provision of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. The said amount has not been received by the claimants but they have filed the claim petitions before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, which is not legally maintainable. The plea taken by the Union of India in the aforesaid writ petition reads as follow:
“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the writ petition may very kindly be allowed and respondent No. 1 be directed to refund Rs. 1,94,226.00 and 156,577.00 deposited vide Cheque No. G-956824 dated 13 July 2002 respectfully with respondent No. 1 by the petitioner for disbursing the amount in favour of respondents No. 3 and 4 as compensation under Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 along with interest @ 18% in favour of the petitioner in the interest of justice.
Any other writ, order or direction whatever the Hon’ble Court may deem fits under the circumstances of the case may also be passed i
