Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Narayan Chokhoba Waghbhije, was a driver employed by respondent no.1, Sangita Gharat, who owned a truck insured with respondent no.2, The New India Assurance Company Ltd. On 13.04.1997, the appellant met with a vehicular accident and sustained injuries to his femur and toe of the left leg, resulting in 35% physical disability. He was hospitalized for about twenty days and could not work as before. He served notices to both respondents but received no compensation. Consequently, he filed an application under Sections 3 and 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (now Employees Compensation Act) before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Judge, Labour Court at Latur. The Commissioner rejected his claim on the ground that the appellant had already approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and received compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (no-fault liability), and therefore the claim was barred under Section 167 of the MV Act. The appellant appealed to the Bombay High Court. The respondents did not deny the accident or the employment relationship. The insurer objected that the application was bad for want of notice under Section 10 of the 1923 Act, but the Commissioner discarded that objection, and no appeal was filed against that finding. The insurer also raised the bar under Section 167 of the MV Act. The High Court heard both counsel. The court analyzed Section 167 of the MV Act, which provides that a claimant may elect to claim compensation either under the MV Act or under the Workmen's Compensation Act, but not both. The court held that the receipt of interim compensation under Section 140 (no-fault liability) does not amount to an election to proceed under the MV Act for final compensation. The claimant had not made a final election; he had merely received interim relief. Therefore, the subsequent claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act was not barred. The court also noted that the finding on the notice issue had attained finality. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the Commissioner's order dated 30.07.2001, and remanded the matter to the Commissioner for fresh adjudication on merits, directing that the amount received under Section 140 of the MV Act be adjusted against any compensation awarded under the 1923 Act.
Headnote
A) Workmen's Compensation - Bar under Section 167 of MV Act - Election of Remedies - Section 167 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Section 3 of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - The issue was whether a workman who had received interim compensation under Section 140 of the MV Act from the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal could subsequently file a claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The court held that Section 167 prohibits a claimant from making a claim under both Acts in respect of the same accident, but does not bar a claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act if the claimant had not elected to proceed under the MV Act for final compensation. Receipt of interim compensation under no-fault liability does not constitute an election barring a subsequent claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The court allowed the appeal and set aside the Commissioner's order, remanding the matter for fresh adjudication on merits. (Paras 1-10) B) Workmen's Compensation - Notice under Section 10 - Waiver of Objection - Section 10 of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - The insurer objected that the application was bad for want of notice under Section 10. The Commissioner discarded that objection, and no appeal or cross-appeal was preferred against that finding. The court noted that the finding on notice had attained finality and was not challenged. (Para 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether an application under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 is barred under Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 when the claimant had earlier received compensation under Section 140 of the MV Act from the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Order dated 30.07.2001 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Judge, Labour Court at Latur in Application (WCA) No.4 of 1998 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Commissioner for fresh adjudication on merits. The amount received by the appellant under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act shall be adjusted against the compensation, if any, awarded under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
Law Points
- Section 167 of Motor Vehicles Act
- 1988
- Section 3 of Workmen's Compensation Act
- 1923
- Section 10 of Workmen's Compensation Act
- Election of remedies
- Bar on double compensation
- No-fault liability under Section 140 of MV Act
