Madras High Court
V. Thangappan vs Tamilnadu Industrial Insurance Corpn. on 3 January, 1992
Equivalent citations: I(1993)ACC352, 1993ACJ1276, (1993)IILLJ483MAD
Author: M. Srinivasan
Bench: M. Srinivasan
JUDGMENT
1. The court below has taken the view that the petitioner appellant is not entitled to make a claim under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act in view of the fact that he has already availed of the benefits under the Employees State Insurance Act. The court below has followed the judgments of this Court in Mangallamma v. Express New Papers Ltd., and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. P. Saraswathi Mohan . The former is a decision of a Division Bench and the latter is that of a single Judge. In both the cases, it has been held on a construction of Section 53 of the Act, that, if the claimant is entitled to the benefits of the said Act, he is barred rom claiming any compensation under any other law including the Motor Vehicles Act.
2. Learned Counsel submits that in the present case, the claimant was proceeding to his work spot on his own bicycle and the accident could not be considered to have taken place in the course of his employment. He places reliance on the observations made by the Supreme Court in S.S. Mfg. Co. v. Bal Velu Raja, . In that case, the employee was returning from his work spot to his house. There, it was held that the accident was not in the course of employment. That ruling will have no bearing on the present case. The section has been considered by several High Courts.
The expression employment injury has been defined by the Act in Section 2(b) of the Act as a personal injury to an employee caused by accident or an occupational disease arising out of and in the course of his employment. The term in the course of employment has been considered by the various High Courts in the following cases :
Sarpounadeen v. E.S.I. Corporation Ahmedabad, 1981, L.I.C. 1653 (Gujarat), Regional Director E.S.I. Corporation, Bangaore v. L. Ranga Rao v. 1982-I-LLJ-29 (Karnataka), Ajudhee Rai v. R.S.T. Corporation, 1959 M.P. 338, Ganjanan Dhan Mark v. E.S.I. Corporation, 1974 II LLJ 163 (Bombay) and Regional Director E.S.I. Corporation v. Parameshwaram Pillai, 1975 Kerala L.T. 708.
4. In the above cases, it has been held that if an employee proceeds towards his work spot for the purpose of attending to his work and if any accident occurs, it is certainly an accident in the course of employment and that he is entitled to the benefits of the Employees State Insurance Act. In this case, the claimant has already availed of the benefits of the Act and he cannot claim compensation under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.
5. Learned Counsel for the appellant contends that Section 53 of the Employees State Insurance Act is unconstitutional land ultra vires the powers of the Parliament. It is not open to him to raise that contention, as the appellant has already availed himself of the benefits of the Act. The Judgment of the Division Bench in Mangalamma v. Express News Papers Ltd., already referred to decide that point also. In view of the said judgment, which is binding on me, I cannot entertain the objection raised by the appellant.
6. In the circumstances there is no merit in the appeal and it is dismissed.
7. Learned Counsel submits that the appellant should be permitted to make a claim for compensation under the provisions of the Employees State Insurance Act. If any such claim is still available to him and if the law permits the same, it will be open to makes such a claim.