Back
1997 Supreme(MP) 137
R.D. Vyas, J.
Raj Kumari Nigam And Anr.
vs
Ashok And Ors.
Decided On : 11 March, 1997
Injuries received in a motor accident are not employment injuries unless they arise out of and in the course of the employment of the injured employee, and therefore, Section 53 of the ESI Act does not bar claims under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - SECTION 166 - EMPLOYEES' STATE INSURANCE ACT - SECTION 53 - WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT - SECTION 3 - ACCIDENT - COMPENSATION - INJURY - EMPLOYMENT INJURY - LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE - INTEREST - ENHANCEMENT - APPELLATE COURT - DUTY TO ENHANCE INTEREST - FULL BENCH DECISION - PRAKRAMCHAND V. CHUTTAN - RATIO - INJURIES RECEIVED IN A MOTOR ACCIDENT ARE NOT EMPLOYMENT INJURIES - SECTION 53 OF THE ESI ACT DOES NOT BAR CLAIMS UNDER THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - BROTHER OF THE DECEASED IS A LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE - INTEREST CAN BE ENHANCED BY THE APPELLATE COURT WITHOUT CROSS-OBJECTIONS.
Fact of the Case:
Yogendrakumar Nigam, Ambaram, and Marry Dissuza were traveling in a mini bus when it collided with a truck, resulting in the death of Yogendrakumar and Ambaram and injuries to Marry Dissuza. The claimants filed claims under the Motor Vehicles Act, but the appellants argued that the claims were barred by Section 53 of the Employees' State Insurance Act (ESI Act) and that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the injuries received in the accident were not employment injuries as defined under Section 2(8) of the ESI Act, as they did not arise out of and in the course of the employment of the injured employees. Therefore, Section 53 of the ESI Act did not bar the claims under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the claims were barred by Section 53 of the ESI Act? 2. Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the claims? 3. Whether the brother of the deceased was a legal representative entitled to compensation? 4. Whether the rate of interest could be enhanced by the appellate court without cross-objections?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 53 of the ESI Act bars claims for compensation under any other law for employment injuries sustained by an insured person as an employee under the ESI Act. 2. Injuries received in a motor accident are not employment injuries unless they arise out of and in the course of the employment of the injured employee. 3. The brother of the deceased is a legal representative entitled to compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. 4. The appellate court has the duty to enhance the rate of interest to 12% per annum without cross-objections, as per the Full Bench decision in Prakramchand v. Chuttan.
Final Decision: The court dismissed Appeals Nos. 50 to 52 of 1989 and allowed Appeal No. 61 of 1989 to the extent of Rs. 20,000/- more than what was granted by the Tribunal. The rate of interest in all three claims was enhanced to 12% per annum from the date of the application till realization.
R.D. Vyas, J.
1. These appeals arise against the Claim Case Nos. 6, 8 and 11 of 1987 decided by a common judgment dated 4.8.1988 by the learned 5th Additional M.A.C.T., Indore, who was pleased to award the amounts to the respective respondents of all the appeals except Appeal No. 61 of 1989.
2. The appellants of Appeal Nos. 50, 51 and 52 of 1989 argued that the Tribunal ought not to have granted the claims as the same were hit by Section 53 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, ('E.S.I. Act' for short) which reads as follows:
Section 53. Bar against receiving or recovery of compensation or damages under any other law.-An insured person or his dependants 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.
3. So far as Appeal No. 61 of 1989 is concerned, it is a cross-appeal against Appeal No. 50 of 1989, wherein the appellants Raj Kumari Nigam and Hemant Kumar Nigam have appealed against the quantum of compensation. It was argued by Mr. M.L. Dhupar, learned Counsel for the appellant that the bar under Section 53 of the E.S.I. Act arises as the injuries received by the deceased in this accident could be termed 'employment injury', therefore, the Tribunal ought to have declined to exercise jurisdiction barred under that Act and directed the claimants to approach appropriate forum under the E.S.I. Act. So far as Appeal No. 61 of 1989 is concerned, he advanced one more argument that in any case the liability would be limited as the accident has occurred because of composite negligence on the part of the offending vehicles.
4. Short facts giving rise to these appeals are that Yogendrakumar Nigam, Ambaram and Marry Dissuza were travelling in mini bus No. MBN 7182 from Dewas to Indore on 24.3.1979. The respondent No. 4 Abdul Mazid was driving the mini bus rashly and negligently. At about 9-9.30 in the morning the mini bus came near Shukla farm in village Lasudiya, collided with truck No. MPE 5938 that came from the opposite direction, which was also driven rashly and negligently by the respondent No. 2 Gopal. Yogendrakumar died on the spot. Ambaram also died in the said accident whereas Marry Dissuza received injuries on various parts of her body. She was taken to the hospital and was treated there. She suffered mental and physical pain due to the injuries of her right hand, shoulder and received disability. She is often required to take leave and her chances of promotion have become bleak.
5. The respondent Ashok denied that the truck belonging to him was driven by respondent Gopal recklessly and negligently. It was stated that the driver Gopal was driving the truck cautiously and the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the mini bus. During the pendency of the matter the original claimant Mangilal seems to have died, therefore, his name is deleted in Appeal No. 51 of 1989.
6. The Tribunal after appreciating the evidence held that the appellant and the respondent-owner were liable to pay the compensation as detailed in the judgment to all the claimants except Hemant Kumar who appealed (Appeal No. 61 of 1989) claiming to be the legal representative of the deceased to receive the compensation.
7. Mr. Dhupar appearing in Appeal Nos. 50 to 52 of 1989 argued only one point as aforesaid that the Claims Tribunal had no jurisdiction and the claimants were not entitled to approach the M.A.C. Tribunal under the provisions of Section 53 of the E.S.I. Act.
8. Mr. Patwa, learned Counsel for the respondents in Appeal Nos. 50 to 52 and appellant in Appeal No. 61 of 1989 argued that according to the judgment of this Court in Madhya Pradesh State Road Trans. Corporation v. Praveer Kumar Bhatnagar 1994 ACJ 579 (MP) th
