Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs Heirs Of Decd.Mukesh Bhagvanjibhai ... on 24 April, 2017

Author: Mohinder Pal

Bench: Mohinder Pal

                   C/FA/456/2003                                                  JUDGMENT




                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                   FIRST APPEAL NO. 456 of 2003



         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 ?

         ==========================================================
                    ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD.....Appellant(s)
                                   Versus
         HEIRS OF DECD.MUKESH BHAGVANJIBHAI KARAMTA & 1....Defendant(s)
         ==========================================================
         Appearance:
         MR R G DWIVEDI, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1
         DELETED for the Defendant(s) No. 1.1
         MR HRIDAY BUCH, ADVOCATE for the Defendant(s) No. 2
         MR HITESH V PATEL WITH MR VIMAL M PATEL, ADVOCATE for the
         Defendant(s) No. 1.2
         ==========================================================

             CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL
                               Date : 24/04/2017


                                        ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award Page 1 of 5 HC-NIC Page 1 of 5 Created On Tue Apr 25 00:15:46 IST 2017 C/FA/456/2003 JUDGMENT dated 9.5.2002 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Junagadh in WC(F) No. 55 of 1995, awarding compensation of Rs. 1,63,570/- to the legal heirs and representatives of the deceased workman Mukesh Bhagvanjibhai Karamta, the Insurance Company has come in appeal.

2. The brief facts of the claim petition are that Mukesh was working as a driver of the original opponent no. 1 on truck No. GRL-5147. He was getting salary of Rs. 2100/- per month. On the relevant date, he started from Vadodara via Upleta with his truck. However, the truck met with an accident with other truck. The accident was head-on collusion. As a result of this accident, Mukesh received serious injuries, and ultimately died. Originally, the claimants preferred claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, and Insurance Company has deposited Rs. 50,000/- under No Fault Liability. However, the said petition was withdrawn by the claimants and filed W.C.(F) No. 55/1995. The Commissioner, after taking into account the employment and salary of the deceased, awarded Rs. 1,63,570/- after deducting Rs. 50,000/- awarded under No Fault Liability by the claims Tribunal. Aggrieved from this decision, the Insurance Company has come in appeal.

3. Learned counsel Mr. Dwivedi appearing for Insurance Company has submitted that the award Page 2 of 5 HC-NIC Page 2 of 5 Created On Tue Apr 25 00:15:46 IST 2017 C/FA/456/2003 JUDGMENT passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation required to be modified in view of the fact that the earlier claim petition was preferred under the Motor Vehicles Act and Insurance Company was made to deposit Rs. 50,000/- along with interest by No Fault Liability. Once the claimant has chosen to file claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, the claim filed under Workmen's Compensation Act was not maintainable. Learned counsel has further argued that the Insurance Company was not liable to pay the interest on the amount awarded in view of the provisions of the Act and further the income of the deceased assessed by the Commissioner at the rate of Rs. 2000/- per month was excessive, as in the earlier claim petition preferred under the Motor Vehicles Act, the income has been claimed at Rs. 1500/- per month and at the time of filing of this Workmen Compensation Case, the income of the deceased was stated to be Rs. 1500/- per month, which was later on amended to Rs. 2000/- per month.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has controverted this arguments by submitting that even if the earlier petition was filed under the Motor Vehicles Act, the claimants were entitled to file the case under the Workmen Compensation Act in view of the fact that the Tribunal has granted Rs. 50,000/- under No Fault Liability and after deducting the said amount, Page 3 of 5 HC-NIC Page 3 of 5 Created On Tue Apr 25 00:15:46 IST 2017 C/FA/456/2003 JUDGMENT the Commissioner has awarded compensation of Rs. 1,63,570/-.

5. This Court has considered the submissions of both the sides. The employment of the deceased was not under dispute. The dispute is raised regarding filing of earlier claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act. This Court is of the considered opinion that once the benefit granted under the Motor Vehicles Act, has been adjusted in the award passed under the Workmen Compensation Act, the petition preferred by the claimants under the Workmen Compensation Act cannot be dismissed.

6. Otherwise also, a young person of 26 years age has lost his life on duty while driving the truck insured with the appellant - Insurance Company. Keeping in view the age of the deceased, nature of job, the manner in which the accident has taken place and responsibility of the deceased towards claimants, the award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation is just and proper. Now the claimants have to live rest of their life on this meagre amount of Rs. 1,63,570/- as the only bread winner of their family at the young age of 26 years has died, and therefore, award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation does not call for any interference.

7. Resultantly, this appeal is dismissed.





                                                Page 4 of 5

HC-NIC                                      Page 4 of 5       Created On Tue Apr 25 00:15:46 IST 2017
                    C/FA/456/2003                                       JUDGMENT




                                                                 (MOHINDER PAL, J.)
         mandora




                                      Page 5 of 5

HC-NIC                             Page 5 of 5      Created On Tue Apr 25 00:15:46 IST 2017