Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.
United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Vaneeta and Ors. – Respondents
FAO Nos. 8307 of 2014 and 794 of 2016 (O&M)
Decided On : 23-10-2019
For the Appellant :R.K. Bashamboo and Rabinder Singh, Advocates
For the Respondents:R.K. Bashamboo, Rabinder Singh, Satbir Rathore and Ashwani Arora, Advocates
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the conditions for bypassing the bar under Section 53 of the ESI Act and initiating a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act were satisfied, allowing the claim against a third party despite the bar under Section 53.
Headnote:
ESI Act - Compensation - Section 53 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 53 of the ESI Act was discussed by the court in relation to the claim for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. The court analyzed various judgments and interpretations of Section 53, highlighting the conditions under which the bar against receiving compensation under any other law does not apply.
Fact of the Case:
The appeal arose from an accident in a factory premises where a truck struck and killed an employee. The Insurance Company argued that the deceased had received benefits under the ESI Act and was not entitled to compensation under any other law. The court addressed the applicability of Section 53 of the ESI Act and the issue of whether the accident occurred in a public place.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accident occurred in a public place, the injury was not an employment injury, and the claim was against a third party, thus allowing the claim under the Motor Vehicles Act despite the bar under Section 53 of the ESI Act.
Issues: The issues involved the applicability of Section 53 of the ESI Act, the definition of a public place, and whether the injury constituted an employment injury.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the conditions for initiating a claim despite the bar under Section 53 of the ESI Act were satisfied, allowing the claim under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal filed by the Insurance Company and found no grounds for enhancing the compensation awarded to the claimant.
JUDGMENT :
Nirmaljit Kaur, J.
1. Both the above mentioned appeals shall stand disposed of by this common order as the same arise out of the same accident and award.
FAO-8307-2014
2. The appeal is filed by the Insurance Company against the award dated 31.3.2014 vide which Rs.28,56,152/- was awarded in pursuance to a accident that took place on 27.7.2011 in the factory premises where a truck bearing No. UA08-E-9577 being reversed by the driver of the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner struck against Kulnaresh Singh since deceased, who died on account of the injuries suffered by him.
3. While praying for setting aside the said award, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company came forward with the arguments that the deceased was working as Quality Control Engineer. The accident took place in the factory where the deceased was present at the gate of the Amber Enterprises (1) Private Limited and the truck in question while revering hit into the deceased. Thus, the place of occurrence is the work place. He has already received benefit under the ESI Act and having received the same, the claimant was not entitled to compensation under any other law for the time being enforced in view of the bar under Section 53 of the ESI Act. Reliance was placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mangalamma and others v. Express Newspapers Ltd. and another, 1982 AIR (Madras) 223 to support the contention that the factory was a private place and, therefore, the accident had taken place at a private place, the liability cannot be fastened upon the insurer.
4. In order to substantiate the argument that the compensation under any other Act was barred by Section 53 of the ESI Act once the compensation has been received, reliance was placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A. Trehan v. M/s. Associated Electrical Agencies, 1996(2) Mh. LJ 555.
5. Before proceeding with the matter, this Court may note that no such plea or objection was raised by the appellant-Insurance Company in the reply filed in the claim-petition. Accordingly, no issue was framed to the said effect as to whether the accident was in a public place or whether the deceased had received any amount under the ESI Act and if received, whether the claimant was at all entitled under the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and whether the bar under Section 53 of the ESI Act was applicable in the claim under the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
6. In fact, there is not even an iota of mention in the claim-petition before the Tribunal. However, taking into account the legal issue, this Court proceeds to decide the same. For proper adjudication it would be appropriate to reproduce Section 53 of the ESI Act. The same reads as under:-
"Section 53: Bar against receiving or recovery of compensation of damages under any other law:- an insured person or his dependents shall not be entitled to receive or recover, whether from the employer of the insured person of from any other person, any compensation or damages under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923(8 of 1923) or 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."
7. No doubt, the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in the case of Mangalamma (supra), went on to hold that no claim for compensation under Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act could be maintained in case the claimant get the benefit under the ESI Act but the same judgment also held that the object of said Section 53 of the ESI Act was to see that the Employer is not faced with more than one claim in relation to the same accident. Though the observation that there was complete bar was upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A. Trehan (supra) but A Trehan (supra) did not deal with the claim under MACT but under ESI and Workmen's Compensation Act which was between same employer. Para 10 of
