Gujarat High Court
Heirs Of Dinesh Maganlal Mehta vs Mahila Gruh Udyog Lijjat Papad & on 7 April, 2016
Author: R.D.Kothari
Bench: R.D.Kothari
C/FA/2285/2015 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2285 of 2015
=========================================================
HEIRS OF DINESH MAGANLAL MEHTA....Appellant(s)
Versus
MAHILA GRUH UDYOG LIJJAT PAPAD & 1....Defendant(s)
=========================================================
Appearance:
MR MEHUL S SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1 1.6
MS KARUNA V RAHEVAR, ADVOCATE for the Defendant(s) No. 2
=========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.D.KOTHARI
Date : 07/04/2016
ORAL ORDER
Heard learned advocates for the parties.
The appellants claim o be aggrieved by the rejection of the Workmen Compensation Application No. 17 of 2006 by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Labour Court, Kutch. The appellants application came to be rejected on the ground that the workmen has applied under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for compensation for the same accident. That being so, the appellants now cannot claim compensation under the Workmen's compensation Act. Referring the facts of the case, it was pointed out that in the present case, S.T. Bus and Mini Bus are involved in the accident. In the present case deceased was a driver of the Mini Bus. An application for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act was filed by the heirs and therein the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that there is 90% negligence on the part of the driver of the S.T. Bus and 10% on the part Page 1 of 3 HC-NIC Page 1 of 3 Created On Sat Apr 09 02:51:55 IST 2016 C/FA/2285/2015 ORDER of the driver of the Mini Bus.
After passing of the award by the learned Tribunal, the legal heirs of the deceased driver of the Mini Bus has filed an application under Workmen's Compensation Act for compensation against respondent no. 1 owner and respondent no. 2 - Insurance Company. The learned advocate for the opponents was appearing in delay condonation application filed by the applicant and, therefore, the name of the learned advocate for the respondent no. 2 is shown in the daily Board. The learned advocate for respondent no. 2 has drawn attention to the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Mastan & Anr., reported in (2006) 2 SCC 641 and in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Dyamavva & Ors., reported in (2013) 9 SCC 406. In the former case, attention was drawn to para
22. Relying on the same, it was contended that the claimants now claim compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act and no interference is called for in the order of the Labour Court. It was also pointed out that the respondents have been joined as party to the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act and in that case also the learned Tribunal has exonerated the present respondent.
On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Shah has drawn attention to the decisions of this Court in the case of Superintendent of Post Offices, Rajkot & Ors., v. Pratap Ghelabhai Maru & Ors., reported in 1987 ACJ 674 (para 3) in the case of Nasimbanu Wd/o. Sirajuddin Amruddin Kazi & Ors., v. Ramjibhai Bachubhai Ahir & Ors., reported in 2005 (2) GLR 1476 and in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Fataben Jamalbhai reported in 2009 (2) GLR 1450. Distinguishing Mastan's case (supra), learned advocate Mr. Shah referred para 4 of the said judgment and has pointed out that unlike the present case in that case, only one vehicle was involved Page 2 of 3 HC-NIC Page 2 of 3 Created On Sat Apr 09 02:51:55 IST 2016 C/FA/2285/2015 ORDER and the above referred decision of this Court shows that the claimants claim petition for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act and Workmen's Compensation Act are maintainable.
It appears that the learned trial Court has placed reliance on one decision of the Orissa High Court in rejecting the claimants application. The labour Court has no benefit of the above referred decisions.
The matter requires consideration.
Since the accident in question is of the year 1994, and in view of the above discussion, Notice for final disposal returnable on 15.06.2016. Learned advocate Ms. Karuna Rahevar waives service of notice on behalf of respondent no. 2.
Office is directed to call for the R & P so as to reach this Court at the earliest.
(R.D.KOTHARI, J.) /phalguni/ Page 3 of 3 HC-NIC Page 3 of 3 Created On Sat Apr 09 02:51:55 IST 2016