Madhya Pradesh High Court
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Gouribai And Ors. on 15 July, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1999ACJ1056, AIR1998MP104, 1998(1)MPLJ121, AIR 1998 MADHYA PRADESH 104, (1998) 1 LAB LN 634, (1998) 1 MPLJ 121, (1998) 1 TAC 645, (1999) 2 ACJ 1056, (1998) 2 CIVLJ 642
Author: R.S. Garg
Bench: R.S. Garg
JUDGMENT
1. One Mehtaruram was in the employment of Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District Durg. On 1-9-92, at about 11.00 p.m., Mehtaruram who was working in the Bhilai Sleet Plant was going hack to his house, was dashed and hit by a Maruti Car Bearing Registration No. MOR 247, the vehicle was being driven by Rajendra Kumar. The ear belonged to M/s. Ferro Scrape Corporation Ltd. and was under immediate control of the Asstt. Manager (Personnel) Ferro Scrape Corporation Ltd. The vehicle was insured with the appellant/Oriental Insurance Company. According to the allegations made in the claim petition, the vehicle was driven rashly and negligently. After hitting the deceased, the driver fled away from the spot. Mehtaruram was admitted in the hospital, who died on 2-9-92 at 0.30 a. in. The claim petition further states that the claimant was about 52 years of age, was to work for more than six years and would have earned a good amount for the family. The claimants who are respondents No. 1 to 5 in this case claimed a sum of Rs. 4,68,920/- as compensation. An application under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act was also filed seeking compensation under the provisions of no fault liability. By order dated 26-7-93, the Claims Tribunal, in claim ease No. 11/ 93 delivered an interim award of Rs. 25,000/- in favour of the claimants. On 12-10-93, the present appellant and others moved an application under Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking relief that as the claimants had exercised their option under the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act, their application under the Motor Vehicles Act was not maintainable. The claimants contended before the Court that they did not move any application for grant of the compensation before the Commissioner, Workman Compensation, but as the amount was already deposited by the employer of the deceased, they simply made an application for its disbursement. After hearing the parties, the learned Court below held that the petition filed by the claimants was maintainable and the application filed by the present appellant was not tenable.
2. Smt. Ruprah, learned counsel for the appellant placing reliance on the judgment of Delhi High Court in the matter of N.N. Kashyap v. Ratti Ram 1986 ACJ 484 and judgment of this Court in the matter of this Court in the matter of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kamar Jahan 1994 ACJ 100, has contended that where the claimants have exercised their option under the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, they shall not be permitted to take advantage of the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, especially Section 92A, in view of the bar contained under Section 110AA (Sections 140 and 167 of 1988 Act).
3. On the other hand, Shri N.C. Beohar, learned counsel for the claimants placing his strong reliance on a judgment of Gujarat High Court in the matter of Harivadan maneklal Modi v. Chandrasinh Chhatrasinh Parmar, AIR 1988 Gujarat 69, contended that if the claimants did not do anything for recovery of the money under the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act, but had only received money deposited, by the employer, with the Commissioner, they are not debarred from claiming compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.
4. Section 3(5)(a) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 reads as under :--
"3(5). Nothing herein contained shall be deemed to confer any right to compensation on a workman in respect of any injury if he has instituted in a civil court a suit for damages in respect of the injury against the employer or any other person;
and no suit for damages shall be maintainable by a workman in any court of law in respect of any injury -
(a) If he has instituted a claim to compensation in respect of the injury before a Commissioner; or
(b) If an agreement has been come to between the workman and his employer providing for the payment of compensation in respect of the injury in accordance with the provisions of this Act."
5. Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 reads as under :--
110-A. Application for compensation-- (1) An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in Sub-section (1) of Section 110 may be made -
(a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or (aa) by the owner of the properly; or
(b) Where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or
(c) by any agent duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be :
Provided that where all the legal representatives of the deceased have not joined in any such application for compensation, the application shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased and the legal representatives who have not so joined, shall be impleaded as respondents to the application.
(2) Every application under Sub-section (1) shall be made to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred, and shall be in such form and shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed :
Provided that where any claim for compensation under Section 92A is made in such application, the application shall contain a separate statement to that effect immediately before the signature of the applicant. (3) No application for such compensation shall be entertained unless it is made within six months of the occurrence of the accidents :
Provided that the Claims Tribunal may entertain the application after the expiry of the said period of six months if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application in time.
6. Section 110-AA of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 reads as under :--
"110-AA. 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 Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) the person entitled to compensation may without prejudice to the provisions of Chapter VII-A, claim such compensation under either of those Acts but not under both."
7. The Court has to consider the effect of Section 3(5)(a) of the Workmen's Compensation Act and the provisions of Section 110AA(Section 167 of the New Act). According to Section 3(5)(a) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, if a workman in respect of any injury has already instituted a suit in a civil court for damages in respect of the injury, then he cannot file a claim before the Commissioner, and if he has instituted a claim for compensation in respect of the injury before a Commissioner, then no suit on his behalf for damages shall be maintainable in any Court of law in respect of any injury. Section 110-AA of Motor Vehicles Act provides that where the death of or bodily injury to any person gives rise to a claim for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act and also under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, the person entitled to compensation may claim such compensation under either of the Acts but not under both. Section 3(5)(a) of the Workmen's Compensation Act and Section 110-AA of the Motor Vehicles Act clearly provide that if the matter is brought before one Court, then the jurisdiction of the other Court shall stand ousted.
8. Section 110F of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 reads as under :--
110-F. Bar of Jurisdiction of Civil Courts--Where any Claims Tribunal has been constituted for any area, no civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any question relating to any claim for compensation which may be adjudicated upon by the Claims Tribunal for that area, and no injunction in respect of any action taken or to be taken by or before the Claims Tribunal in respect of the Claim for compensation shall be granted by the Civil Court."
9. According to Section 110-F where any claims Tribunal has been constituted in any area, the civil court shall have no jurisdiction to entertain any question relating to any claims which arises out of an accident and can be adjudicated upon by the Claims Tribunal for that area.
10. When 1923 Act was in force, the Motor Vehicles Act was not in force, therefore, the words 'civil Court' and 'civil suit' have been used in Section 3(5)(a) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. After the enactment of Motor Vehicles Act. 1939 and incorporation of Section 110-A, etc., when a Claims Tribunal has been constituted in any area, a civil suit would not be maintainable. Applying the principles of interpretation, Section 3 (5)(a) of 1923 Act has to be read with little modification that in place of 'civil court' and civil suit; the words 'claims tribunal' and the 'claim petitions' will have to be read.
11. The question before this Court is that if the claimants have already received the compensation deposited by the employer with the Commissioner, whether they can still maintain a claim petition before the Claims Tribunal. In the matter of N. N. Kashyap (supra), the High Court has held that the provisions of these two acts would show that only one remedy is available for claming compensation, either under the Workmen's Compensation Act or under the common law remedy in civil courts. The object of Section 110-F was also to recognise only one remedy and it excludes the jurisdiction of the civil court in preference to the remedy under the Motor Vehicles Act. These two acts are special enactments providing for independent forum for claiming compensation. These two enactments and these provisions in particular would show that the object of the legislature was to prevent multiplicity of the proceedings. In the said case, the Court found that prior to institution of the claim petition before the Claims Tribunal, the claimants had already secured compensation of the amount from the Commissioner, therefore, their petition before the Claims Tribunal was not maintainable. In the present case, undisputedly the claim petition was filed on 4-12-92, the amount of compensation was deposited with the Commissioner by the employer on 23-4-93. Apparently the claimants had already exercised their option before the amount was deposited with the Commissioner.
12. Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 reads as under :--
Section 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."
13. The words of the Section clearly provide that an option is given to the claimants to claim compensation under either of the Act and not under the both. The words 'may claim* in Section 110-AA (Section 167 of New Act) makes it clear that the option is left to the person entitled to compensation to choose whether he would seek the remedy available under the Motor Vehicles Act or the Workmen's Compensation Act. He has to choose either of these two remedies but not both. In the matter of New India Assurance Co. Ltd., the Court while considering the question of award of the interim compensation also considered the effect of Sections 92-A and 110-AA(Sections 140 and 167 of the 1988 Act) and Section 3 of Workmen's Compensation Act. In the said matter, the accident took place on 3-5-82, the legal representatives of the deceased filed an application for compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal with an application under Section 92-A of 1939 Act for interim award. The application was resisted by the Insurance Company on the ground that they had received compensation under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act and, therefore, their claim was not maintainable. In para 3 of the judgment, the Court observed that the counsel for the claimants did not dispute before the Court that the claimants of that case had also preferred a claim petition under the provisions of Work men's Compensation Act and had received compensation under that Act. Considering the total conduct of the said claimants, the Court held that the claim preferred by the claimants before the Claims Tribunal after having made the claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act. 1923 was misconceived and was, therefore liable to be dismissed.
14. In the instant case, as found by the trial Court, the claim petition was filed on 4-12-92.
Application for deposit was made before the Commissioner by the employer on 23-4-93. It appears that on 23-4-93. sum of Rs. 58,480/- was deposited by the employer with the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation. The claimants after receiving the knowledge of the said deposit, filed an application before the Commissioner appointed under the Workmen's Compensation Act for disbursement of the said amount. H is not the ease of the present appellant that no amount was deposited by the employer and the claimants were forced to recover the amount from the employer. The claimants had already exercised their option by filing the claim petition before the Claims Tribunal on 4-12-92. Assuming that Section 3(5)(a) of Workman's Compensation Act applied with full force, at best the amount deposited by the employer could not have been given to the claimants, but deposit of the amount on 23-4-93 with the Commissioner would not hinder or affect the option already exercised by the claimants on 4-12-1992.
15. In the matter of Harivadan Maneklal (supra), the Court observed that deposit of compensation money by third party in discharge of his obligation under the Workmen's Compensation Act can never tantamount to the option being exercised by the person entitled to compensation. The Court farther found that receipt of compensation money deposited by the employer in discharge of his obligation under Section 4 of the Workmen's Compensation Act without the appellants having made any claim for compensation under that statute cannot debar the claimants from claiming compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act by virtue of Section 110-AA thereof. According to the Court, such deposit of compensation money and receipt thereof by the dependents of the deceased will not amount to making a claim by the dependents of the deceased under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act.
16. When a workman suffers an injury or dies, the amount of compensation is to be paid by the employer under Section 4 of the Act. Section 4A of the Workmen's Compensation Act obliges the employer to pay the compensation as soon as it falls due, failing which on the expiry of one month he becomes liable to pay interest and penalty as provided under the Act. Under the Workmen's Compensation Act, the employer is duty bound to deposit the compensation amount and if he fails to pay compensation within the period so provided in the statute, he becomes liable to pay interest and penalty as may be imposed. After the amount is deposited the Commissioner has to apportion the amount payable to each dependant and disburse the same. The employer to avoid payment of interest and imposition of penalty would naturally be keen to deposit the amount which is due to the workman/ dependents of the deceased. Ones the amount is deposited with the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, the dependants of the deceased may received compensation without any application made by them on the amount having been deposited by the employer as required by the statute. The mere fact that the appellants received compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, under the circumstances, is not sufficient to deprive them to their remedy by virtue of Section 110-A A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The present claimants could not have prevented the employer from discharging his obligation under the Workmen's Compensation Act by depositing the compensation amount, to which the claimants were entitled under that statute. If the employer had deposited the amount for performance of his obligation cast on him by Section 4 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. it can't be gainsaid or assumed that the claimants had made a claim under the statute for compensation. In order to negative the claim made under the Motor Vehicles Act, it must be shown that the person entitled to compensation had made a claim himself for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. It must also be shown that the application was made consciously with due understanding that the application was for claiming compensation arid the claimants were exercising their option under Section 3(5)(a) of the Act. The words 'May claim such compensation' have been used in either of the statute. The words clearly show that the person entitled to compensation must take a cautious decision and opt for compensation under one of the statute. Deposit of the compensation by the employer can never tantamount to the option being exercised by the person entitled to compensation. When the claimants did not make any application claiming compensation under Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act but had merely received the amount which was deposited by the employer to discharge his legal obligation, it can't be said that the claimants had exercised their option consciously. In this situation, the statute cannot debar the claimants from claiming compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act by virtue of Section 110-AA thereof.
17. In the matter of Harivadan Maneklal the Court had observed that "it must be realised that the Motor Vehicles Act being a benevolent legislation, if two interpretations are possible the one which advances the legislative intent of providing 'just' compensation to the victims of a motor accident must be preferred."
18. It is settled law that any provision which purports to take away or abridge the right to claim compensation under the statute must received strict interpretation.
19. As found above, it is clear that the claimants had exercised their option under Section 110-AA of the Motor, Vehicles Act by lodging the claim before the Accident Claims Tribunal on 4-12-92. Any subsequent act of theirs 'for receiving the compensation deposited by the employer of the deceased would not destroy the option exercised by them nor would create an embargo of impediment in their right of claiming the compensation before the Claims Tribunal. Even "otherwise, it has to be held that if the employer in discharge of his statutory obligation makes a deposit of the compensation amount under Section 4 of the Workmen's Compensation Act and the claimants who arc entitled to file a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, withdraw the amount deposited with the Commissioner, their right to lodge the claim before the Claims Tribunal is not at all impaired.
20. In view of the above, it has to be held that the claim lodged by the claimants was maintainable.
21. The Court below was justified in rejecting the application filed under Section 167 (1988 Act). The present appeal deserves to and is accordingly dismissed. The respondents-claimants shall be entitled to their cost quantified to Rs. 50D/