Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.44 seconds)Section 167 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
State Of A.P. And Anr. vs K. Pushpalatha And Ors. on 5 September, 2006
5. The Tribunal, on issue No.1 held that the accident occurred due to rash
and negligent driving of the driver of lorry. When it comes to issue No.2, the
Tribunal discussed that to award compensation, the claimant has to prove that
respondent No.3, who is the wife of the deceased, as legal heir of the deceased
and further observed that it is an admitted fact that the wife of deceased, who is
petitioner in W.C.No.184 of 2004 on the file of the Assistant Labour
Commissioner-III Hyderabad and petitioner in O.P.No.365 of 2004 on the file of
II Additional District Judge, Rangareddy, has filed two claims and she claimed
compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act against owner and
insurer of auto as deceased was working as driver of the auto. The Tribunal
further discussed the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in State of
A.P. and another vs. Smt. K. Pushpalatha and others1 and observed that
this Court has categorically enunciated the law that whatever exgratia payment
on humanitarian ground received by the legal heirs of deceased and whatever
the group insurance or provident fund received by the legal heirs of deceased
they are entitled for compensation under Motor Vehicles Act and considering
the same, the Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- with interest
at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate
costs.
M/S.National Insurance Co. Ltd And ... vs Mohammed Mastan Ali And Others ... on 11 August, 2008
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that for the very same
accident, the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation under the
Workmen's Compensation Act as it is an admitted fact that the wife has claimed
the amount by filing a petition under the Workmen's Compensation Act. She
submits that as the mother of the deceased has preferred this petition under the
Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation, the Insurance Company has not
paid compensation twice because of the same accident. She submits that in
view of the bar under Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, a person is entitled
to claim compensation either under the Workmen's Compensation Act or under
the Motor Vehicles Act, but not under both the Acts. Learned counsel has
relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company
Limited vs. Mastan and another2 and submits that as per Section 167 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a claimant having opted to proceed under the
Workmen's Compensation Act cannot take recourse to or draw inspiration from
any of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 other than what is
specifically saved by Section 167 of the Act and it was also observed by the
Apex Court that Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 imposes a liability
on the owner of the vehicle to pay the compensation fixed therein, even if no
fault is established against the driver or owner of the vehicle. Sections 141 and
142 deal with particular claims on the basis of no fault liability and Section 143
re-emphasizes what is emphasized by Section 167 of the Act that the
provisions of Chapter X of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, would apply even if the
claim is made under the Workmen's Compensation Act. In the said case, the
2
(2006)2 SCC 641
4 LK, J
MA CMA.No.460 of 2008
claimant has not chosen to withdraw his claim under the Workmen's
Compensation Act before it reached the point of judgment with a view to
approach the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.
Section 166 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
M/S.United India Insurance Co vs Jayaprakash on 19 September, 2013
Learned counsel appellant-Insurance Company further submits that
when the wife has claimed compensation and the same was granted, no share
was given to the mother of the deceased. She relied on the judgment of the
Kerala High Court in Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation3, wherein
it was held that the claimant has to choose either of the remedies. She has
also relied upon the judgment of the Kerala High Court in United India
Insurance Company Limited vs. Jayaprakash; Biju M S, Sunil V. Baby,
Managing Director State Express Transport Corporation Limited, Perumal
v. Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation Limited4, wherein it was similar ratio
was laid down in the said judgment.
T. Bagavathi Perumal vs State Express Transport Corporation ... on 27 August, 2021
Learned counsel appellant-Insurance Company further submits that
when the wife has claimed compensation and the same was granted, no share
was given to the mother of the deceased. She relied on the judgment of the
Kerala High Court in Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation3, wherein
it was held that the claimant has to choose either of the remedies. She has
also relied upon the judgment of the Kerala High Court in United India
Insurance Company Limited vs. Jayaprakash; Biju M S, Sunil V. Baby,
Managing Director State Express Transport Corporation Limited, Perumal
v. Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation Limited4, wherein it was similar ratio
was laid down in the said judgment.
The National Insurance Company Ltd vs Dondewar Vijayalaxmi 5 Ors on 9 November, 2021
9. Learned counsel for respondent-claimant has also relied on the
judgment of the Karnataka High Court in National Insurance Company
Limited vs. Vijayalaxmi and others 7 wherein it was observed that the
6
2019(2) GauLT 361
7
2017 ACJ 2129
6 LK, J
MA CMA.No.460 of 2008
contention of the claimants is that immediately on the death of the deceased,
they have filed a claim petition under the Workmen's Compensation Act with
regard to the Group Insurance Policy taken by the employer for employees
working at work site by paying separate premium to the Insurance Company.
Hence, the Court held that the claimants are entitled to claim both under the
Group Insurance Policy if separate premium was paid to the Insurance
Company and also under the Motor Vehicles Act for a third party claim. Even,
this judgment also does not apply to the facts of this case.
1