Bombay High Court
Ganpat Pratap Bhogle vs H.L. Roche And Ors. on 4 August, 1994
Equivalent citations: 1994ACJ1101
JUDGMENT M.L. Pendse, J.
1. This appeal is companion to Original Side Appeal No. 676 of 1993 in Associated Electrical Agencies v. Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation 1994 ACJ 1078 (Bombay), in which today we have delivered judgment. For the reasons recorded in that judgment, this appeal must fail.
The appellant in this case was employed in Forbes Forbes Campbelle and Co. Pvt. Ltd. and was proceeding to the place of work in a bus engaged by the employer. Motor vehicle bearing No. MRR 7601 met with an accident on January 28, 1979, causing injuries to the appellant, It is not in dispute that the establishment where the appellant was working is covered by the provisions of Employees' State Insurance Act. It is equally not in dispute that the appellant has received the benefits available under Employees' State Insurance Act in respect of the employment injury suffered.
2. The appellant filed claim for damages before Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for Greater Bombay in respect of the injury suffered. The application was resisted by the employer and the owner of the bus which met with the accident on the ground that the claim was barred under Section 53 of Employees' State Insurance Act. The objection was upheld by 3rd Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal by order dated January 25, 1985 and the application for damages was dismissed. The order of dismissal has given rise to this First Appeal.
3. Ms. Sarnaik, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, reiterated the contentions urged in the companion appeal in which today we have delivered judgment [Associated Electrical Agencies v. Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation 1994 ACJ 1078 (Bombay)]. For the reasons recorded in that judgment, the contentions cannot be accepted. The learned counsel urged that the claim filed by the employee is not against the employer but against the owner of the bus, who had entered into a contract with the employer for carrying the workers to the place of work. It was urged that Section 53, at the most, can create a bar to file a claim against the employer but not against any other person. The submission is devoid of any merit. The bar under Section 53 applies not only against the employer but also against any other person. Apart from this consideration, the claim is made not against any individual but in respect of the employment injury suffered. Any claim for compensation or damages in respect of employment injury is not permissible when the benefit is available under the provisions of Employees' State Insurance Act. In our judgment, the order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal does not suffer from any infirmity and the appeal must fail.
4. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed but there will be no order as to costs.