SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

SERVESH KUMAR GUPTA
Dalbir Lal – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Mr. Pankaj Purohit, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. I.P. Kohli, Standing Counsel

JUDGMENT

Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.—Appellant Mr. Dalbir Singh has already got the compensation under Motor Accidents Claims but he has come up before this Court seeking further compensation under the Workmen Compensation Act for the reason that he met an accident when he had already left his Office and was in the way to reach his home.

2. In this matter, the provisions of Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act are relevant viz. reads as under:-

167. Option regarding claims for compensation in certain cases:- Notwithstanding anything contained in the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) where the death of, or bodily injury to, any person gives rise to a claim for compensation under this Act and also under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, the person entitled to compensation may without prejudice to the provisions of Chapter X claim such compensation under either of those Acts but not under both.

This provision contemplates in so many words regarding claims for compensation of a person, who met with accident, in any manner, being an employee, then he may claim compensation under either Motor Vehicles Act or Workmen’s Compensation Act but he cannot be at liberty to claim suc







Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top