Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(I) Without filing an appeal whether the respondents can get the finding of the Tribunal displaced in an appeal filed by the claimant under Order 41, Rule 33;

(II) In an appeal filed by the claimant whether the Insurance Company is prohibited from canvassing the correctness of the award?

(III) Whether the Insurance Company can contest the claim on grounds other than the grounds specified under Section 149(2) of the M.V. Act?

(IV) Principles for fixing the compensation under Motor Vehicles Act and Workmen's Compensation Act are altogether different, whether the Tribunal created under M.V. Act can entertain any claim by a driver of the vehicle against his employer for awarding compensation under Workmen's Compensation Act;

Issue No. IV :

31. To answer this question we have to look at the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act deals with Insurance of Motor Vehicles against third party risks. Section 145 deals with the definitions. The Legislature made insurance of the vehicles compulsory to protect the interests of the successful claimant from being defeated by the owner of the vehicle who has no enough means to meet his liability. Section 146(1) deals with the class of vehicles that are required to take Insurance policy compulsorily and Section 146(2) deals with the class of vehicles that are exempted from obtaining an Insurance Policy. Section 147(1) deals with the issuance of Insurance policy and the persons or classes of persons covered under the policy to the extent specified. Section 147(l)(b)(i) covers the liability of the insured, which may be incurred by him in respect of death or bodily injury to any person including the owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of vehicle in a public place (ii) any liability to any passenger of public service vehicle caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place. As per the 1st proviso to Section 147(4)(b) of the Act, the liability of the insurer under the policy issued under Section 147 of M.V. Act no policy is required in respect of death or bodily injury sustained by categories of employees mentioned therein in the course of their employment under Workmen's Compensation Act (a) the driver of the vehicle (b) if it is a public service vehicle the Conductor and Examiner in examining the tickets on the vehicle (c) if it is a goods carriage being carried in the vehicle or to cover any party on the contracted liability under second proviso. Under sub-section (2) the Insurance Company shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any accident (b) in respect of damage to any property of a third party up to Rs. 6000/- Under sub-clause (5) the insurer is liable to indemnify the person or classes of persons specified in the policy in respect of any liability and this provision was given overriding effect over any other provision contained in any law for the time being in force. From this it is seen that under the policy issued under Section 147 of Motor Vehicles Act that the employees like drivers, cleaners, ticket examiners working on the vehicles are entitled to receive compensation on account of accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle in a public place both under the provisions of M.V. Act as well as the Workmen's Compensation Act if the accident has taken place during the course of employment without obtaining a separate policy for the coverage under Workmen's Compensation Act. Under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the victims of the motor vehicles are to be fully compensated and fully protected by the owner of the vehicle since he is having vicarious liability to compensate the victim as well as his own employee under Workmen's Compensation Act, when his vehicle is covered by the Insurance Policy as contemplated under Section 146 of the Act a duty is cast on the insurer issuing policy to satisfy the decree to the extent of assured sum. Under Section 167 of the M.V. Act where the death of or bodily injury to, any person gives raise to a claim for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act as well as Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, the person entitled to compensation may without prejudice to the provisions of Chapter X claim such compensation under either of those Acts but not under both. To put it aptly a person entitled to claim compensation under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act as well as Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 is given option to file application seeking compensation either under the provisions of the M.V. Act or under Workmen's Compensation Act but not in both the forums.

15. Learned Counsel for the respondents contended before us that since the Motor Vehicles Act has not defined the word 'death' and the legal interpretations relied upon by us are with reference to definition of the word 'death' in Workmen's Compensation Act, the same will not be applicable while interpreting the word 'death' in Motor Vehicles Act because according to her, the objects of the two Acts are entirely different. She also contends on the facts of this case no proximity could be presumed between the murder of the driver and the stealing of the autorickshaw. We are unable to accept this contention; advanced on behalf of the respondents. We do not see how the objects of the two Acts, namely the Motor Vehicles Act and the Workmen's Compensation Act are in any way different. In our opinion, the relevant object of both the Acts is to provide compensation to the victims of accidents. The only difference between the two enactments is that so far as the Workmen's Compensation Act is concerned, it is confined to workmen as defined under that Act while the relief provided under Chapters X to XII of the Motor Vehicles Act is available to all the victims of accidents involving a motor vehicle. In this conclusion of ours, we are supported by Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act as per which provision, it is open to the claimants either to proceed to claim compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act or under the Motor Vehicles Act. A perusal of the objects of the two enactments clearly establishes that both the enactments are beneficial enactments operating in the same field, hence judicially accepted interpretation of the word 'death' in Workmen's Compensation Act is, in our opinion, applicable to the interpretation of the word death in the Motor Vehicles Act also."

67. It is true that when once a policy is taken by the owner of the vehicle under Section 146 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it covers the liability of the owner of the vehicle to pay compensation to the third party (victim in the accident) as well as his own driver who caused the accident under Workmen's Compensation Act. I have already taken a view that in case of bodily injury or death, under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, the owner of the vehicle is liable to pay compensation to his employee, if a policy is taken under Section 146 of the Motor Vehicles Act as per proviso to Section 147(b)(l) of the Act. As such, an employee covered by this proviso is entitled to file a claim petition claiming compensation both under the Motor Vehicles Act and the Workmen Compensation Act as well. What all is prohibited under Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act is that he should not approach both the Forums simultaneously and in the light of the view taken by me in this judgment, the Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act is empowered to adjudicate the claims of the employees arising under proviso to Section 147(l)(b) of the M.V. Act under Workmen's Compensation Act, without relegating him to go to the competent authority under that Act. Sri Subbarao, learned Counsel also contends that since the liability of the insurer of the vehicle to pay compensation to the employee of the insured who is responsible for causing the accident is also there, and if the insurer has to pay the entire compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the accident caused to a third party as well as the compensation to the employee of the insured under Workmen's Compensation Act, the insurance company will be over burdened to pay the compensation. In other words, the insurer has to satisfy the claim of the third party as well as the person who caused the accident under different enactments. Hence, to obviate the difficulties, Sri Subbarao, learned Counsel suggests that since the liability of the owner to pay compensation to the driver whether he is responsible for causing accident or not under the Workmen's Compensation Act is retained intact, which has to be indemnified by the insurer, the Tribunal has to limit the compensation payable to the third party under the provisions of M.V. Act after deducting the compensation payable to the victim by his employer under Workmen's Compensation Act and direct the insurer of the other vehicle to pay that compensation. In doing so, the interests of victim of the accident is in no way effected and the compensation payable to him will be shared by both the insurers, since the victim is injuncted from claiming compensation under both the Acts. Opposing this contention, Sri Jagannadh, learned Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent with whom the vehicle caused the accident is insured, contended that in case the compensation payable under the Workmen's Compensation is more than the compensation payable to the third party under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, the tortfeasor would escape the liability altogether and the owner of the vehicle, whose employee is nowhere responsible for causing the accident has to pay the compensation and his insurer has to indemnify him to that extent. At the same time, the learned Counsel Sri Jagannadh and Sri Venkateswararao appearing for the appellants admitted that the compensation payable to the victim being a statutory one under the Workmen's Compensation Act will be always less than the compensation payable under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. Assuming for a moment that the compensation payable under Workmen's Compensation Act is less than the compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act, in case of injury, the owner of the vehicle has to satisfy the claim of the driver who caused the accident and in case of death, he has to pay compensation to his legal heirs. By following this procedure, the burden of the tortfeasor will be reduced to some extent. Otherwise, he has to satisfy the award of the Motor Vehicles Appellate Tribunal as well as the award to be passed by the competent authority under Workmen's Compensation Act, by paying compensation to the third party as well as the driver, who caused the accident by driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. Sri Venkateswararao, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant contends that this proposition may work out well in cases where both the vehicles are insured. But in cases where there is negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicles belonging to the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and other Government vehicles, which are exempted from obtaining the Insurance Policy and other vehicles, it will be difficult for the third party to recover the compensation. I do not find much substance in this contention because though the APSRTC as the owner of its vehicles is exempted from taking Insurance Policy, under Workmen's Compensation Act, they are not exempted from paying compensation to the third party for the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by its driver or to its own employee, who caused the accident. Hence, I feel that when two vehicles are involved in an accident and the driver of one vehicle is responsible for causing the accident, it will be fair to work out the compensation payable to the injured person of the other vehicle, by treating him as a third party and thereafter, ascertain the liability of his employer to pay compensation under Workmen's Compensation Act. Then, the Tribunal should pass an award directing the insurer with which the vehicle involved in the accident is insured to pay compensation to the employee of the insured who is nowhere responsible for causing the accident under Workmen's Compensation Act and the rest of the claim has to be fastened on the insurer of the vehicle that caused the accident due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by its driver. In other words, after ascertaining the compensation, the Tribunal shall direct the insurers of both the vehicles to pay compensation as per their liability. I am constrained to take this view keeping in mind the liability of the owner of the vehicle to pay compensation to his employee without reference to any negligence on his part, as per the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, is retained in tact under the provisions of M.V. Act. Otherwise, it will be burdensome for the Insurance Company to satisfy the claim of the third party as well as the employee of the tortfeasor. In case of contributory negligence also, after ascertaining the compensation payable under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, the compensation payable by the employer to his employee under Workmen's Compensation Act has to be worked out and the award has to be apportioned between both the insurers. By virtue of this judgment, the Tribunal constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act has to pass an award under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and also an award under Workmen's Compensation Act in case of an employee covered under proviso to Section 147(1) (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act and apportion the compensation as directed above. This issue is answered accordingly."