IMPORTANT POINT
Claimants can only pursue compensation under one act for the same incident, as established by Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT :

Laxmi Narayana Alishetty, J.

Heard Mr. A. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned standing counsel the appellant-insurance company and learned counsel Sri Y.S. Yella Nand Gupta for the appellants/claimants.

2. CMA No.276 of 2013 is an appeal filed by the insurance company to set aside the order dated 28.01.2013 in WC No.29 of 2011 and CMA No.14 of 2022 is an appeal filed by claimants to enhance the compensation amount. Considering the fact that these two appeals arise out of the same award dated 28.01.2013 passed in W.C.No.29 of 2011 by the Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour at Nizamabad (for short, ‘the Commissioner’), both appeals are heard together and decided by this common judgment.

3. The appellant in CMA No.276 of 2013 is the insurance company and the appellants in CMA No.14 of 2022 are the claimants before the Commissioner. For convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

4. The brief facts leading to filing of the present appeal are that deceased—Ganapuram Ushaiah was working as driver on DCM van bearing registration No.AP-10-U-727 under the employment of O.P.No.1-owner of the DCM van and on 18.09.2006 under the instructions of the OP No.1, the deceased was driving the vehicle towards Hyderabad and when he reached near Imampoor village shivar, he lost control over the van and dashed APSRTC Bus, which came in opposite direction. As a result, the deceased was crushed in the cabin and died on the spot. The Police, P.S. Toopran, registered a case in Crime No.234/2016 against the deceased and since he died on the spot, subsequently, police closed the case as abated.

5. The deceased was aged 28 years, hale and healthy at the time of accident and used to contribute his earnings to the maintenance and welfare of his family. The claimants filed application under the provisions of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, ‘the Act’) claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of death of deceased in an accident against the opposite party nos.1 and 2, who are the owner and insurer of the offending van.

6. The opposite party no.1-owner of the crime vehicle remained ex parte.

7. The opposite party no.2-insurance company, filed written statement denying all the material allegations mentioned in the application and further contended that there is no employer and employee relationship between the O.P.1 and the deceased. It is contended that amount of compensation claimed by the applicants with interest and costs are high, excessive, exorbitant and not in accordance with law and finally, prayed to dismiss the claim against the insurance company.

8. Basing on the above pleadings, the Commissioner had framed the following issues :

(i) Whether the deceased Ganapuram Ushaiah met with an accident on 18.09.2016 during the course and out of his employment as driver on the DCM van bearing No.AP-10-U-727 under the employment of 1st opposite party and succumbed to injuries ?

(ii) Whether the judgment in O.P.No.1/2009 by the IX ADJ MACT, Kamareddy has any bearing in this present case and accordingly decide the issue of liability to pay compensation?

(iii) What is the amount of compensation if any entitled by the applicants ?

9. In order to substantiate the case, the 1st applicant herself was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked on their behalf. On behalf of the opposite party No.2-insurance company, RW.1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B3 were marked.

10. The Commissioner, on due consideration of the evidence adduced and documents placed on record, awarded compensation of Rs.4,41,990/-.

11. During the hearing of the appeals, the learned standing counsel for insurance company in CMA No.276 of 2013 submitted that the award passed by the Commissioner is contrary to statutory law laid down under Section 167 of Motor Vehicles Act, as per which, the claimants are entitled to claim compensation either under W.C.Act or MV Act and not under both. Whereas in the pr