Claim for compensation an only be raised before one forum.

1. This appeal coming on for hearing on Friday, the 12th March, 1982 before the Honorable Mr. Justice Mohan, and upon perusing the petition of appeal, the order of the Lower Court, and the material papers in the case, and upon hearing the arrangements of Mr. Sanjay Mohan, Advocate for the Appellant, and of Mr. K. Chandru, for M/s. Row and Reddy, Advocates for the First Respondent, and the respondents 2 to 5 having been given up, the court made the following order :

2. This appeal raises a very important question of law as to the Jurisdiction of the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 to direct compensation to be awarded against the insurer. There are number of authorities for and against. Holding that the Commissioner has no jurisdiction, there are rulings (1) Sudhir Kumar v. Hori (59 F.J.R. 165) and (2) R. B. Moondra & Co v. Bhanwari . On the contrary, by importing the principle set out under Ss. 95 and 96 read along with S. 110-AA of the Motor Vehicles Act, the rulings in (1) United India Fire & General Insurance Co Ltd. v. Kamalakshi [1980-II L.L.J. 408], (2) Bibuti Bhusan Mukherjee v. Smt. Dinamani Dei [1982-I L.L.J. 73], Shri Ram Mining Co. v. Asst. Commissioner for Work. Comp. (57 F.J.R. 132) (4) Khwajabai v. Gulabkhan Jamalkhan Pathan (55 F.J.R. 105) and (5) Krishan Lal v. Munshi Ram (55 F.J.R. 292) hold that the Commissioner has every jurisdiction. May be I can follow either of the ruling depending upon the view I take. But having regard to the fact that this question is likely regard to the fact that this question is likely to recur again and again, it is better the matter is decided by a Bench. Therefore, I direct the papers to be placed before My Lord the Chief Justice for posting the same before a Bench.

3. Within one month from this day, the appellant will pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- to the respondent-workmen. This of course, will be without prejudice to the rights of the parties.

4. Pursuant to the order, dated 12th March, 1982 and made herein, this appeal coming on for hearing before this Court on Tuesday, 19th July, 1982, Wednesday, 20th July, 1982, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. Sanjay Mohan, Advocate, for the Appellant and for of Mr. K. Chandru for M/s. Row & Reddy, Advocate for the first respondent and the respondents 2 to 5 having been given up, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following order :

(Order of Court made by the Honorable The Chief Justice)

5. This appeal by the Premier Insurance Company Ltd., is against the order of the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Madurai, awarding compensation against the insurance company and employers in a claim filed by the petitioner-first respondent, C. Thomas, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, hereinafter referred to as the Compensation Act. The appeal first came to be heard by a single Judge who referred it to a Division Bench. That is how it is before us.

6. The first respondent (claimant) was employed by one Mariammal Isaiah to work as cleaner-cum-conductor on the lorry owned by her bearing registration No MDK 1159. While working on the lorry the first respondent met with an accident on 26th June, 1968, when the said lorry was hit by another lorry bearing registration No MDT 7153 and he sustained injures in the course of his employment, as a result of which his left high bone was crushed and his thigh up to the hip was amputated, in the Government Headquarters Hospital, Nagercoil. The first respondent filed a claim application under the Workmen's Compensation Act alleging that as a result of the amputation he lost 90 percent of his working capacity as per Schedule II of the said Act and claimed a sum of Rs. 8,820/- as compensation. In the said proceedings he also impleaded the appellant, the vehicle on which he was working was insured with the appellant company. In the course of the said proceedings the original owner of the lorry died and in her place her heirs, respondents 2 t