Back
2005 Supreme(Online)(SC) 159
S.B. Sinha, P.K. Balasubramanyan, JJ
National Insurance Company – Appellant
Versus
Mastan & Anr. – Respondent
Appeal (civil) 7381 of 2005 | CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7383 OF 2005
M. K. DUA
Insurer cannot invoke defences under the Motor Vehicles Act in claims under the Workmen's Compensation Act, and parties must elect which statute to pursue.
Headnote:(A) Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 - Sections 30(1) and provisions under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Insurance Company's defence limitations - Insurer cannot raise defences under M.V. Act in W.C. Act claims. (Paras 12, 20, 31)
(B) Doctrine of Election - Claimant must elect under which Act to file, cannot mix claims. (Paras 24, 25)
(C) Appeals under distinct statutory provisions - Differences in the scope and nature of appeals arise from the nature of claims. (Para 34)
Facts of the case:
An accident involving a lorry led to compensation awarded under the 1923 Act; insurer's appeal based on limitations of defence outlined in M.V. Act.
Findings of Court:
Court found the Full Bench erred in limiting insurances defenses, allowing further consideration under merits of original claims.
Issues: Whether insurer's defenses under M.V. Act could apply in W.C. Act contexts, and the implications of choosing one claim over another.
Ratio Decidendi: The insurer's right to contest is limited regarding the W.C. Act; claimant must elect which Act for compensation under, cannot pursue parallel claims.
Result: Appeals allowed and remitted for fresh consideration.
S.B. SINHA, J :
Leave granted.
Whether an insurer, while defending an action initiated under the Workmen’s Compensation Act , 1923, (for short, ’1923 Act’) is precluded from raising any defence as envisaged in under sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988, (for short, ’the 1988 Act’) is the question involved in these appeals.
We will notice the fact of the matter from the Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.26615 of 2004.
A lorry bearing registration No. KA 34-545 was insured with the Appellant company. The First Respondent herein was a cleaner and the Second Respondent was an owner of the said lorry. The said lorry was involved in an accident resulting in sufferance of injuries by the First Respondent which led to his disability to the extent of 45 to 50%. He initiated a proceeding under the 1923 Act. The Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Davangere, by an order dated 30.04.1997 awarded a sum of Rs.2,70,264/- by way of compensation and interest of Rs.33,230/- to the workman payable by the Appellant herein.
Aggrieved by and dissatisfied therewith the Appellant preferred an appeal before the High Court under Section 30 (1) of the 1923 Act, which was dismissed by the High Court on the premise that the Appellant was not entitled to urge any ground therein which was not available to it in terms of the 1988 Act. In support of the said finding, reliance was placed upon a Full Bench judgment of the High Court dated 17.12.2003 in MFA Nos. 1910 of 1997 etc. The question referred to the Full Bench of the High Court for its consideration was as under :
"Whether the restrictions on the defences available to an insurance company in terms of Section 149 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act have any application to the proceedings under the Workmen’s Compensation Act ?"
Upon consideration of various provisions of the 1988 Act including Sections 143, 167 and 149 thereof, the Full Bench held :
"\005Under the circumstances, under the W.C. Act, the Insurance Company can only agitate violation of any condition of the policy to make substantial question of law, and therefore, the question of raising other defences available in terms of Sec. 149(2) of the M.V. Act does not arise."
It was also held :
"Under the provisions of Workmen’s Compensation Act a statutory appeal is provided under Section 30 of the Act to the High Court on the orders enumerated therein. The proviso to that Section makes it very clear that no appeal shall lie against any order unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal.
As stated earlier negligence or contributory negligence of the offending vehicle is not a ground to be considered at all while awarding compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act . Therefore, the insurer cannot prefer any appeal either challenging the quantum of compensation or on any other grounds except the ground available to him under Section 149 (2) of the 1988 Act."
In arriving at the said findings, the Full Bench inter alia relied upon decisions of this Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nicolletta Rohtagi and Others [ (2002) 7 SCC 456 ]], United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bhushan Sachdeva & Ors. [ (2002) 2 SCC 265 ] as also Ved Prakash Garg v. Premi Devi and Others [ (1997) 8 SCC 1 ]. The Full Bench apart from the finding that the contributory negligence is not a defence on the part of the owner of the vehicle or the insurance company further opined that the question of proving negligence does not arise under the 1923 Act. It was further observed that the expression ’death’ shall carry the same meaning both under the 1923 Act as also the 1988 Act.
Both the 1923 and 1988 Acts are self-contained Codes. Subject to the provisions made in the later Act, Section 3 of the 1923 Act provides that if personal injury is caused to a workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation in terms of the provisions of
