Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
D. K. Seth, J.
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. - Appellant
Versus
WORKMENs COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 37550 Of 1992
Decided On : 01/17/1996
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT - INSURANCE COMPANY'S LIABILITY - REVIEW OF ORDER - JURISDICTION OF AUTHORITY - INTERPRETATION OF SECTIONS 14, 167 OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 AND SECTION 23 OF WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923.
Fact of the Case:
Two writ petitions arose from proceedings under Section 17 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, concerning the deaths of Safdar Miyan and Insar Ahmed in an accident involving a minibus. The claimants sought compensation from the minibus owner and the insurance company.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Workmen's Compensation authority had jurisdiction to review its order and determine the liability of the insurance company, even though the Code of Civil Procedure was only applicable to the extent specified in Section 23 of the Act. The court also held that the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Workmen's Compensation Act were not mutually exclusive, and that the authority could consider the liability of the insurer under the Motor Vehicles Act while deciding the case under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the Workmen's Compensation authority had jurisdiction to review its order and determine the liability of the insurance company? 2. Whether the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Workmen's Compensation Act were mutually exclusive?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Workmen's Compensation authority had jurisdiction to review its order and determine the liability of the insurance company, even though the Code of Civil Procedure was only applicable to the extent specified in Section 23 of the Act. The court reasoned that the absence of specific provisions in the Act or Rules did not debar the authority from dispensing justice, and that the power to review its own order inheres in the Tribunal or authority concerned unless specifically prohibited or barred. 2. The court held that the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Workmen's Compensation Act were not mutually exclusive. The court interpreted Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which provides that a person entitled to compensation under both Acts may claim compensation under either Act but not both, as giving the claimant the option to choose which forum to pursue their claim. The court also noted that Section 143 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides that the provisions of Chapter X of the Act, which deals with "no fault liability," shall apply to a claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act resulting from an accident of the nature referred to in Section 140 of the Act. The court interpreted this as indicating the legislature's intention that claims arising out of the Motor Vehicles Act can also be claimed under the Compensation Act.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions and directed the Commissioner to proceed afresh on the basis of the material on record and any additional material produced by the parties, to determine the liability of the insurer and the amount to be paid by the insurer, if any.
( 1 ) THESE two writ petitions arise out of two proceedings initiated under Section 17 of the workmens Compensation Act, 1923 arising out of the same accident, in which one Safdar miyan and Insar Ahmed had died. The case as made out in Writ Petition No. 37551 of 1992 is as follows:
( 2 ) THE respondents No. 3, 4 and 5 as claimants have made an application under Section 17 of the workmens Compensation Act which was registered as Case No. 21/w. C. A. /91 against Kafeel ahmad and others claiming compensation of Rs. 85,428 together with interest for the death of safdar Miyan on March 1, 1991 while employed under the said Kafeel Ahmad, owner of Mini bus No. U. P. 25-5058.
( 3 ) WHILE the case made out in Writ Petition No. 37550/92 was that the respondents No. 3 and 4 had lodged a claim under Section 17 of the Workmens Compensation Act, which was registered as case No. 22/w. C. A. /91 against Kafeel Ahmad, claiming compensation of Rs. 1,06,257 on account of death of Nihal Beg on March 7, 1991 while employed by the said Kafeel Ahmad, owner of Mini Bus No. U. P.- 25-5058.
( 4 ) THE said two cases were allowed by an order dated May 3, 1992 awarding Rs. 85,428 as compensation in each case, fixing the liability on the owner. On July 28, 1992 the claimants in both the cases filed an application for review that though the Insurance Company was a party, in spite of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the authority under the Workmens compensation Act has not fixed the liability of the Insurer who is liable to pay the compensation. The Insurance company had filed its objection on Au- gust 19, 1992 in both the cases. By an order dated September 21, 1992 the authority under the Workmen3 Compensation act had allowed both the application in both the cases holding that the authority had jurisdiction to review and that the liability of the Insurer was not taken into account though copy of the insurance policy was on record and that prior to the application dated July 28, 1992 similar application was filed on June 30, 1992, on which no action having been taken, second application was filed and, therefore the application was treated as within time. It is these orders which have been challenged by means of these two writ petitions.
( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner Insurance Company contends that the Code of Civil procedure is applicable in a proceeding under the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) only to the extent as provided under Section 23 of the Act namely for the purpose of taking evidence enforcing attendance of witnesses and compelling production of documents and material object. By reason of Section 23 of the Act jurisdiction to review has been clearly excluded inasmuch as though certain specified provision of the Code of civil Procedure was made applicable but the provision for review was never intended to be included.
( 6 ) THE second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, was that the Motor vehicles Act and the Workmens Compensation Act are two different enactments. Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 makes it clear that if a person is entitled to claim compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act as well as the Workmens Compensation Act, in that event only one of the proceedings is to be resorted to. Both cannot be pursued. Therefore, one excludes the other. The Workmens Compensation Act does not provide for any liability of the Insurance company except as provided under Section 14 of the said Act namely that if there is a contract of Insurance in respect of any liability under the Compensation Act, then after the insured became insolvent the right of the insured against the insurer would vest in the workman. Therefore the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act cannot be borrowed while deciding the case under the Workmens Compensation Act.
( 7 ) THE third contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the application for review has not
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
