The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the applicability of Sections 53 to 61 of the Employees' State Insurance Act to the claimant's case and the determination of the claimant's insurance coverage under the Act.

JUDGMENT :

V.SIVAGNANAM, J.

PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 to set aside the Judgment and Decree in MCOP No.6609 of 2013 dated 11.04.2019 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II Judge, Court of Small Causes) at Chennai.

The appeal is directed against the award and Decree passed in MCOP No.6609 of 2013 dated 11.04.2019 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II Judge, Court of Small Causes) at Chennai.

2. Facts necessary for disposal of the appeal are narrated herein under:-

The appellant is the insurer of the second respondent/Sanco Trans Ltd. The claimant/Harikrishnan was an employee of the Sudarsan Logistics Private Limited and working at Chennai Port Trust, CIPL Plot as 'Gate Checker'. On 16.03.2013, at about 10.15 hours, when he was checking container lorry, a Crane bearing Reg.No.TN-01-0001, driven by its driver came on the reverse direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him. In the impact, he sustained crush injuries. Immediately, he was admitted at Government Stanley Hospital, Chennai. In consequence of the injuries, his right leg and right hand were amputated. The Government Institute of Medicine issue disability certificate stating that he sustained 90% disability. Hence, the claimant filed the claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.2,34,00,000/-.

3. The claim petition was resisted by the appellant by filing a counter disputing the manner of accident, age, income and avocation of the claimant and nature of injuries sustained by him.

4. Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined four witnesses and filed 26 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.26 On the side of the appellant/Insurance Company, one Stephen was examined as R.W.1 and Exs.R.1 to R.5 were marked.

5. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, held that the driver of the first respondent was responsible for the accident and awarded compensation of Rs.45,60,000/- under the following heads:-

Aggrieved by this award, the appellant/Insurance Company filed this appeal challenging the quantum and liability.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant Mr.M.Krishanmoorthy submitted that since the claimant is an employee under Employees' State Insurance Act, he took treatment at ESI Hospital and availed medical reimbursement and also received monthly compensation under E.S.T Act. In view of the Section 53 of the E.S.I Act, he is barred to claim compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the appellant insurance company need not pay any compensation. He further submitted that the Tribunal failed to frame any specific issue in this regard and the Tribunal has not considered the objection raised by the appellant/Insurance Company with regard to bar under Section 53 of the Employees' State Insurance Act. He further submitted that the owner of the Crane/first respondent had committed breach of policy condition by allowing a person who has not possessed valid driving licence to operate his insured Crane. He further submitted that the Tribunal erred in awarding excess amount of Rs.40,60,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by the claimant without any supporting evidence.

7. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel placed the following decisions:-

(i) National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Mastan and another [