Back
1993 JLJ 373
Dr. T.N. Singh, J.
M.P.S.R.T.C. v. Praveer Kumar Bhatnagar and another.
MA. No. 160 of 1992; against award passed by Smt. Renu Sharma, 3rd
Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior, in Claim Case No.
1900 of 1988; Decided on 26.11.1992.
(2) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -- S. 140 -- compensation on principle of "no fault" -- enacted as a result of judicial c1amour raised in that regard. 1992 JLJ 143 (FB) relied on. AIR 1991 SC 1769 and AIR 1980 SC 1354 followed. [Para 9
(3) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -- S. 140 -- compensation on principle of "no fault" -- should be awarded by Claims Tribunal suo motu. 1988 JLJ 412 relied on. [Para 9
(4) Legal Maxims -- reductio ad absurdum -- supports the proposition that it is not within the contemplation of Legislature to provide two different forums for determination on of two parts of the same claim. [Para 9
(5) Employees‘ State Insurance Act, 1948 --Ss. 75,51 and 52 --E.I. Court can decide a "question" or "di5pute" relating to the right of any person to any benefit -- that Court does not deal with a tortfeasors liability.
In terms of Section 75 (I)(e), that Court c.1n decide a "question" or "dispute" relating to "the right of any person to any benefit and as to the amount and duration thereof". Periodical payments to the claimant in the scale and manner statutorily specified is to be made by the Corporation in such forms as, "Service Benefit", "Maternity Benefit", "Disablement Benefit" and "Dependents‘ Benefit". It is apparent that the E.I. Court does not deal with a tortfeasors liability and docs not award against him damages/compensation according to the uncodified law of Tort for such of his act or omission or commission as is regarded as a wrong liable to be redressed under English Common Law. Indeed, only in respect of an "employment injury", defined in section 2(8), claim either for "Disablement Benefit" (as per section 51) or "Dependents‘ Benefit" (as per section 52) is admissible and liability of the Corporation in that regard the E.I. Court can determine; no "question" or "dispute" relating thereto can be decided, in virtue of section 75(3) by a civil Court [Para 8
(6) Employee‘s State Insurance Act, 1948 -- Ss. 53, 51C (1) and 51-A -only limited cases have been brought within the purview of E. S. I. Act -provisions under section 53 do not bar jurisdiction of Claims Tribunal under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
The general presumption contemplated under section 51A is obviously subject to the substantive provision expressly enacted in section 51-C. It will not be a case of an "employment injury" when the injured is a passenger (though he is an "employee under the E.S.I. Act.") if the employer‘s vehicle in which he is traveling is "being operated in the ordinary course of public transport service." Legislature clearly meant to bring within the purview of E.S.I. Act only a limited class of cases by expressly specifying so, albeit in terms of deeming provision of section 51C (1) and taking special care to exclude simultaneously the category of cases embraced by sub-clause (ii) of clause (b), even when the case is of an "employee under the Act" who suffers injury or dies in a motor-accident involving the employer‘s vehicle. Not only is the deeming provision to be strictly construed to fulfill the limited purpose it is --44 (new), 92-E (old), M.V. Act and to achieve that object the expression "or any other law....." of section 53 to be read in ejusdem gneris sense; the maxim, noscitur a socilis also mandates that course. (1987) Lab I C 310 and AIR 1972 Mys. 255 relied on. 1982 ACJ (suppl.) 259, 1984 ACJ 233 and 1985 ACJ 349 distinguished. [Paras 10 to 13
Dr. T.N. Singh, J. -- 1.This is owner's appeal preferred under section 173, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for short, the MV Act, against an award of compensation of Rs. 20,000/- made in favour of claimant / respondent for the injury he suffered in a motor accident on 13.1.1983.
2. The only question forcefully agitated in this appeal by Shri A.K. Shrivas-tava, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, is want of jurisdiction of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, for short, the Tribunal, to pass the award and to press that contention he has relied on section 53, Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, for short, ESI Act, which is as follows:
"53. Bar against receiving or recovery of compensation or 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 or 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." He has also relied on sections 51-A and 51-C (1) of this said Act which too are extracted below :-
"51-A. Presumption as to accident arising in course of employment. -For the purposes of this Act, an accident arising in the course of an insured person's employment shall be presumed in the absence of evidence to the contrary, also to have arisen out of that employment.
51-C. Accidents happening while traveling in employer's transport. –
(1) An accident happening while an insured person is, with the express or implied permission of his employer, traveling as a passenger by any vehicle to or from his place of work shall, notwithstanding that he is under no obligation to his employer to travel by that vehicle, be deemed to arise out of and in the course of his employment, if –
(a) the accident would have been deemed so to have arisen had he been under such obligation; and
(b) at the time of the accident, the vehicle-
(i) is being operated by or on behalf of his employer or some other person by whom it is provided in pursuance of arrangements made with his employer; and
(ii) is not being operated in the ordinary course of public transport Service".
*** *** ***
3. However, it is to be noted that the plea of statutory bar raised before me in this appeal was• not agitated in the same form before the Tribunal. Indeed, the specific plea that owner/appellant raised in the course of trial of the claim petition was that the accident was not caused by bus No. MPG 9570, owned by it. He suffered injury in the course of an accident caused by some other vehicle. On the date of accident, he had gone to the Labour Court to take steps in connection' with some of his own case and there met with the accident and the claim against the owner, his employer, was a false claim. It is indeed not disputed that the claimant/ respondent was employed as a Store-keeper in the Central Work-shop of the appellant at Gwalior. The Tribunal found, on the other hand, owner's case not established and accepted rather the case of the claimant that the offending vehicle was a mini-bus bearing registration No. MPG 9570 and the claimant was travelling in that bus alongwith other passengers. On the date of accident, he had first gone to the Parcel Office of the Railway Station from Central Work-shop at Kampoo at about 10-30 a. m. in connection with some official business and when he was returning by the mini-bus in question, MPG 9570, he wanted to disembark at a point near the Office of Indian Oil, off the Stadium. He could hardly put on the ground one foot and before he could put his other foot also, the driver rashly drove away the vehicle without blowing any horn or giving any warning as a result of which he fell down on the ground and suffered fracture of bones of both arms. He examined co- passengers Har Prasad and M.L. Maheshwari who supported him. He was
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
