Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.19 seconds)The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923
Smt. Gayatri Devi vs Tani Ram And Ors. on 15 January, 1976
10. Learned Counsel for the appellant relied upon a Division Bench decision in Smt. Gayatri Devi v. Tani Ram, , wherein it was held that proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act relate to the statutory liability created under the Act. The liability adjudicated upon by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is a liability founded on tort and thus falls outside the scope of section 19 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. But that case arose out of an accident that occurred on February 18, 1968, and a claim was preferred on May 3, 1968, before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal prior to the addition of section 110AA of the Motor Vehicles Act which came into force from March 2, 1970. Since section 110AA was held to be prospective, it was held there is no bar for preferring a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act. But, in the instant case, the accident took place and claims were preferred after section 110AA of the Motor Vehicles Act came into force. Hence, the aforesaid decision has no application.
The Oriental Fire & General Insurance ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 15 February, 1974
11. Learned Counsel for the appellants relied on Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, a Division Bench decision of this court wherein it was held "The Tribunals under the Motor Vehicles Act and the Workmen's Compensation Act have concurrent jurisdiction. The option lies with the claimant to choose the one or other Tribunal. Of course, if the workmen chooses a particular Tribunal, it will not be open to him to choose the other one." Thus, it is clear that the above case does not support the contention of the appellants' counsel.
Section 95 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 19 in The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 [Entire Act]
Ogeti Pedda Ranganna vs Zaleka Bee And Anr. on 27 June, 1969
12. Learned counsel for the appellants also relied upon the decision in Ogeti Pedda Ranganna v. Zaleka Bee, , in which the claimants allowed the application under the Workmen's Compensation Act to be dismissed for default as they wanted to prosecute the application filed under the Motor Vehicles Act. The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that since the application under the Workmen's Compensation Act has been dismissed for default as the claimants want to prosecute the claim under the Motor Vehicles Act, the dismissal for default of the application under the Workmen's Compensation Act does not bar the claimants from prosecuting the application under the Motor Vehicles Act. Thus, the aforesaid decision has no application to the facts of this case, since, in the instant case, the claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act was prosecuted and resulted in passing of the award, exhibit B-1.
1