PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
J.V.Gupta, J.
Trading Engineering, New Delhi
Versus
Nirmala Devi
Civil Revision No. 2757 of 1979,
Decided On : FEBRUARY 5, 1980
Workmen's Compensation Act - Compensation Claim - The court considered the claim for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act and the Motor Vehicles Act. The key legal provision discussed was Section 110-AA of the Motor Vehicles Act, which states that a person entitled to compensation under both Acts may claim such compensation under either of those Acts, but not under both. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of this provision and the understanding that a claimant cannot obtain compensation twice over under both Acts.
Fact of the Case:
One Shri Ram Chander, a workman, died in an accident. His widow filed an application for death compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, along with an application for condonation of delay. The employer objected, stating that the application was not maintainable as the widow had already received compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court decided in favor of the claimant, ruling that she was entitled to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act despite receiving compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Issues: The issues framed by the court included the maintainability of the application, the nature of the accident, the limitation of the claim application, and the applicability of res judicata.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 110-AA of the Motor Vehicles Act, which prohibits a person from claiming compensation under both the Workmen's Compensation Act and the Motor Vehicles Act.
Final Decision: The court quashed the order of the Commissioner, ruling in favor of the claimant.
1. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order of the Commissioner under Workmen s Compensation Act, dated 14th September, 1979.
2. One Shri Ram Chander, workman, resident of Sohna, Dist. Gurgaon, died in an accident on 6th January, 1976. His widow, Shrimati Nirmala Devi, respondent, filed an application under the Workmen s Compensation Act, 1923, on 13th November, 1978, claiming death compensation of her husband. Along with that application, an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, was also filed. In the written statement filed on behalf of the employer, an objection was taken that the application was not maintainable, as the widow has already received Rs. 10,000/- under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 , as she had applied for compensation along with the parents of her deceased husband in the Court of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon, and she was awarded Rs. 10,000/-. It was also stressed that the application is time-barred and also barred under Sec. 110-AA of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 .
On the pleadings of the parties the learned Commissioner framed the following issues :-
1. Whether the present application is maintainable in view of Section 110-AA of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 , and Section 3(5) of the Workmen s Compensation Act, 1923 ?
2. Whether the accident arose out of and during the course of employment ?
3. Whether the claim application is barred by the limitation ?
4. Relief.
5. Whether the present application is barred by the res judicata ? Issues Nos. 1, 3 and 5 were treated as preliminary. In the present petition, the main contest is on issue No. 1. The learned Commissioner decided this issue in favour of the claimant. The view taken by him is that she was awarded Rs. 10,000/- by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, whereas under the Workmen s Compensation Act, she is entitled to Rs. 18,000/-, and hence her claim for Rs. 10,000/- can be deducted, which, according to him, is barred by Section 110-AA of the Motor Vehicles Act.
3. In order to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, reproduction of Section 110-AA of the Motor Vehicles Act is necessary. It reads thus :-
"Notwithstanding anything contained in the Workmen s Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923), where the death of or bodily injury to any person gives rise to a claim for compensation under this Act and also under the Workmen s Compensation Act, 1923, the person entitled to compensation may claim such compensation under either of those Acts but not under both".
From the language of this Section, it is quite clear that a person entitled to compensation under both the Acts may claim such compensation under either of those Acts, but not under both. In support of this, a judgement of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, reported as Smt. Gayatri Devi V/s. Tani Ram AIR 1976 Him Pra 75 may be referred to. In para 9 thereof, it has been observed, that :-
"Therefore, the position now was that a claim for compensation can be made either under the Workmen s Compensation Act or under the Motor Vehicles Act. The difference between the nature and legal incidents of a claim under the Workmen s Compensation Act and a claim made in a common law suit continues to be reflected between a claim made under the Workmen s Compensation Act and a claim made under the Motor Vehicles Act. The basis of the two claims differ from each other, and therefore, until 1970 it was possible to obtain relief both claims. It may be observed that while S.3(5) of the Workmen s Compensation Act compels workman to choose between a common law suit and a proceeding under that Act, a corresponding restriction was wanting in respect of a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act and a claim only under the Workmen s Compensation Act. In order to allow a claim only under one of the two Acts, the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1969 inserted See. 110-AA in the Motor Vehicles Act.
The Sec
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.