Gujarat High Court
Anishaben Hanifbhai Meman & 2 vs Rameshbhai Thakarshibhai Sagar & on 24 April, 2017
Author: Mohinder Pal
Bench: Mohinder Pal
C/FA/3233/2005 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 3233 of 2005
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of
the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of
law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of
India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
ANISHABEN HANIFBHAI MEMAN & 2....Appellant(s)
Versus
RAMESHBHAI THAKARSHIBHAI SAGAR & 1....Defendant(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PJ KANABAR, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1 - 3
MR SUNIL B PARIKH, ADVOCATE for the Defendant(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL
Date : 24/04/2017
ORAL JUDGMENT
Page 1 of 3
HC-NIC Page 1 of 3 Created On Tue Apr 25 00:16:53 IST 2017 C/FA/3233/2005 JUDGMENT
1. The short question involved in this case is whether the claimants who have received the compensation under the M.V. Act, are entitled to receive the compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. This question is answered by the Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Dyamavva and others, reported in 2013 ACJ 709. Para-14 of the said decision reads as under:
"14. In the aforesaid view of the matter, we hereby affirm the determination rendered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bagalkot, and the High Court in awarding compensation quantified at Rs. 11,44,440 to the claimant. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bagalkot, as also the High Court, ordered a deduction therefrom of a sum of Rs. 3,26,140 (paid to the claimants under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923). The said deduction gives full effect to section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, inasmuch as it awards compensation to the respondents-claimants under the enactment based on the option first exercised, and also ensures that the respondents-claimants are not allowed dual benefit under the two enactments."
2. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, the present appeal is bound to fail. Resultantly, this appeal is dismissed. However, learned counsel for the appellant is at liberty to revive this appeal in case of difficulty.
Page 2 of 3 HC-NIC Page 2 of 3 Created On Tue Apr 25 00:16:53 IST 2017 C/FA/3233/2005 JUDGMENT (MOHINDER PAL, J.) mandora Page 3 of 3 HC-NIC Page 3 of 3 Created On Tue Apr 25 00:16:53 IST 2017