High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
R. S. GARG
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
GOURIBAI - Respondents
M. A. 726 Of 1995
Decided On : 07/15/1997
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - SECTION 110-AA - WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT - SECTION 3(5)(A) - OPTION TO CLAIM COMPENSATION - INTERPRETATION - CLAIMANTS EXERCISING OPTION UNDER MOTOR VEHICLES ACT BEFORE RECEIVING COMPENSATION UNDER WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT - SUBSEQUENT RECEIPT OF COMPENSATION UNDER WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT DOES NOT BAR CLAIM UNDER MOTOR VEHICLES ACT.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, Mehtaruram, was hit by a car while returning home from work at Bhilai Steel Plant. He died the following day. The claimants, his family members, filed a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation. The appellant insurance company filed an application under Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, arguing that the claimants had already exercised their option under the Workmen's Compensation Act and were therefore not entitled to claim compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the claimants had exercised their option under Section 110-AA of the Motor Vehicles Act by lodging the claim before the Accident Claims Tribunal before receiving the compensation deposited by the employer of the deceased. The court further held that even if the claimants had received the compensation deposited by the employer, their right to lodge the claim before the Claims Tribunal was not impaired.
Issues: Whether the claimants, having exercised their option under the Motor Vehicles Act, were barred from claiming compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 110-AA of the Motor Vehicles Act and Section 3(5)(a) of the Workmen's Compensation Act strictly, holding that any provision which purports to take away or abridge the right to claim compensation under the statute must be given strict interpretation. The court also held that the deposit of compensation by the employer under the Workmen's Compensation Act does not amount to the option being exercised by the person entitled to compensation.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal filed by the insurance company and upheld the decision of the lower court that the claim lodged by the claimants was maintainable.
( 1 ) ONE Mehtaruram was in the employment of Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District Durg. On 1-9-92, at about 11. 00 p. m. , Mehtaruram who was working in the Bhilai Steel Plant was going back to his house, was dashed and hit by a Maruti Car Bearing Registration No. MOR 247, the vehicle was being driven by Rajendra Kumar. The car belonged to M/s. Ferro Scrape Corporationlimited and was under immediate control of the Asstt. Manager (Personnel) Ferro Scrape Corporationlimited The vehicle was insured with the appellant/oriental Insurance Company. According to the allegations made in the claim petition, the vehicle was driven rashly and negligently. After hitting the deceased, the driver fled away from the spot. Mehtaruram was admitted in the hospital, who died on 2-9-92 at 0. 30 a. m. The claim petition further states that the claimant was about 52 years of age, was to work for more than six years and would have earned a good amount for the family. The claimants who are respondents No. 1 to 5 in this case claimed a sum of Rs. 4,68,920/- as compensation. An application under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act was also filed seeking compensation under the provisions of no fault liability. By order dated 26-7-93, the Claims Tribunal, in claim case No. 11/93 delivered an interim award of Rs. 25,000/- in favour of the claimants. On 12-10-93, the present appellant and others moved an application under Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking relief that as the claimants had exercised their option under the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act, their application under the Motor Vehicles Act was not maintainable. The claimants contended before the Court that they did not move any application for grant of the compensation before the Commissioner, Workman Compensation, but as the amount was already deposited by the employer of the deceased, they simply made an application for its disbursement. After hearing the parties, the learned Court below held that the petition filed by the claimants was maintainable and the application filed by the present appellant was not tenable.
( 2 ) SMT. Ruprah, learned counsel for the appellant placing reliance on the judgment of Delhi High Court in the matter of N. N. Kashyap v. Ratti Ram 1986 ACJ 484 and judgment of this Court in the matter of this Court in the matter of New India Assurance Co. Limited v. Kamar Jahan 1994 ACJ 100, has contended that where the claimants have exercised their option under the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, they shall not be permitted to take advantage of the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, especially Section 92-A, in view of the bar contained under Section 110-AA (Sections 140 and 167 of 1988 Act ).
( 3 ) ON the other hand, Shri N. C. Beohar, learned counsel for the claimants placing his strong reliance on a judgment of Gujarat High Court in the matter of Harivadan maneklal Modi v. Chandrasinh Chhatrasinh Parmar, AIR 1988 Gujarat 69, contended that if the claimants did not do anything for recovery of the money under the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act, but had only received money deposited, by the employer, with the Commissioner, they are not debarred from claiming compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.
( 4 ) SECTION 3 (5) (a) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 reads as under :-"3 (5 ). Nothing herein contained shall be deemed to confer any right to compensation on a workman in respect of any injury if he has instituted in a civil court a suit for damages in respect of the injury against the employer or any other person; and no suit for damages shall be maintainable by a workman in any court of law in respect of any injury - (a) If he has instituted a claim to compensation in respect of the injury before a Commissioner; or (b) If an agreement has been come to between the workman and his employer providing for the payment of compensation in respect of the injury in accordance with the provisions of this Act. "
(
REFERRED : Harivadan maneklal Modi v. Chandrasinh Chhatrasinh Parmar
AI
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.