Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. Mr.Joshi, the learned Counsel for the appellant, has submitted that the order passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation is not maintainable in law when the applicants have already filed application for compensation being Application (WCA) No.988 of 2014 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kolhapur. Mr.Joshi, challenged the order of the learned Commissioner on two points. One on the point of maintainability in view of section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act and secondly on the ground of limitation. The accident took place on 24.1.2004, however, dependents filed the application under the Workmen's Compensation Act in the year 2009. He submitted that section 167 is to be strictly interpreted. Section 167 states that when one claim is instituted before either the Tribunal or the learned Commissioner, then, he cannot file second claim petition before other forum. The section gives option to the claimants to claim compensation either under the Motor Vehicles Act or the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 but definitely not under both the enactments. While elaborating his submissions, he relied on section 3(5) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923:

(a) if he has instituted a claim to compensation in respect of the injury before a Commissioner; or

(b) if an agreement has been come to between the workman and his fa.1342.2014(R).doc employer providing for the payment of compensation in respect of the injury in accordance with the provisions of this Act."

15. In the case of Shantabai Parshuram Mule vs. Sharda Prasadsingh (supra), the application for compensation under Motor Vehicles Act was preferred. However, the applicants had received compensation from the employer who had moved before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and he suo motu paid some amount of compensation to the applicants/accused. Objection was raised that as they have received the amount under Workmen's Compensation Act, a second application under Motor Vehicles Act is not maintainable under the old section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Division Bench while dealing with the issue held that the applicants never filed any claim before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation so, though they have received the amount which is offered by the employer, this is not pursuant to the institution of the claim before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and, therefore, the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court held that the second claim or application for compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is maintainable.

fa.1342.2014(R).doc In fact, the finding given by the learned Member, Tribunal, Kolhapur, is erroneous and illegal. Under section 163A, defence of negligence is not available to the insurer. So also, the Tribunal should have restricted the claim upto Rs.40,000/- as annual income of the deceased and accordingly, fixed the compensation under section 163A itself. However, the said order is not challenged in appeal. Instead, the other option of Workmen's Compensation Act is preferred. I am in agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in case of Kore Laxmi (supra), wherein the nature of the liability is correctly distinguished. The liability under the Motor Vehicles Act is out of torts, however, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, it is a strict statutory liability. The sum and substance of these two provisions i.e., section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act and section 3(5) of the Workmen's Compensation Act is that the person should not get benefit of the compensation twice out of the same cause.

27. Therefore, if the claim application is rejected on certain technicalities before one forum, then, denying other forum will lead to depriving dependents of the compensation for which they are otherwise entitled to.

Both the Workmen's Compensation Act and Motor Vehicles Act are social legislations. The sections cannot be interpreted in such a manner so that the object of the legislation will be frustrated. Though the claim is filed before one forum and is rejected and later on, the claim is filed before the fa.1342.2014(R).doc other forum, then, giving compensation under the said Act is not a deviation from the ratio laid down in either Mastan (supra) or in Dyavamma (supra) as the person is not receiving double benefit.