An insured person who has received benefits under the Employees State Insurance Act is barred from claiming compensation under any other law, including the Motor Vehicles Act, for an employment injury.

Sarojnei Saksena, J.

1. Petitioners have assailed the order of the Assistant Labour Commissioner and Commissioner for Workmens Compensation, Rajpura District Patiala dated 6.9.1995 whereby petitioner petition filed under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, is disallowed.

2. Brief facts of the cases are that the petitioners are daughter, son and widow of Gurdev Singh, who was an employee/driver of respondent No. 2 on Car No. PUC/193. On 30.9.1983 when on his official duty, he was returning from Chandigarh to Patiala, this car fell in Bakhra Canal, resultantly, Gurdev Singh died in the accident/ Petitioner-defendants of Gurdev Singh filed the petition before respondent No. 1 claiming compensation on account of death of Gurdev Singh. This petition was filed in the month of March, 1993 under the Workmens Compensation Act. During the pendency of this petition on 26.4.1995 petitioners filed petition under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act and claimed Rs. 50,000/- as compensation on account of no fault liability.

3. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 denied the allegations made in the petition.

4. By the impugned order, learned Assistant Labour Commissioner-respondent No. 1 dismissed their petition on the grounds that the claimants have already availed the benefits under the Employees Insurance Act and issue regarding maintainability of the main application for compensation is pending orders on its merits hence, the petition was dismissed.

5. Petitioners learned counsel contended that a bare perusal of Section 143 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 makes it clear that the provisions of Section 140 are applicable in the cases which are filed under the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923. Thus, according to him, learned respondent No. 1 fell into an error in dismissing the claimants petition filed under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

6. Respondents learned counsel contended that by filing the aforementioned petition, petitioners have claimed Rs. 50,000/- as compensation on account of no fault liability. Gurdev Singh died in accident on 30.9.1983, of course in the course of his employment. Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is amended in September, 1994 providing grant of compensation to a sum of Rs. 50,000/- on account of no fault liability. Earlier Rs. 25,000/- were awardable under this Head. Thus, according to him, since on the date of accident, i.e. 30.9.1983, this amendment was not made in Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, therefore, the claimants are not entitled to claim Rs. 50,000/- though not admitting their entitlement to claim compensation under no fault liability. Under the Head of no fault liability he contends that if at all they are entitled to claim any amount on this basis, they can claim only Rs. 25,000/-. To support this contention, he has relied on Surinder Kaur v. Lakhbir Singh and Ors., (1995-3) 111 P.L.R. 512.

7. So far as maintainability of Such a claim petition is concerned, he submitted that the claimant No. 3 has already been appointed as a Peon by Respondent No. 2 on 2.12.1986. All these claimants are getting pension and other benefits under the provisions of Employees State Insurance Act, 1948. He vehemently argued that under Sections 53 and 61 of the Employees State Insurance Act (Amendment Act) 1989, claimants are not entitled to claim compensation or damages under the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 or under any other law for the time being in force or otherwise in respect of an employment injury sustained by the insured person as an employee under this Act. Section 61 of the Employees State Insurance (Amendment) Act, 1989 provides that "when a person is entitled to any of the benefits provided by this Act, he shall not be entitled to receive any similar benefit admissible under the provisions of any other enactment." Thus, according to him, claimants are not entitled to claim any compensation either under the Workmens Compensation Act or under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act fr