Case Note & Summary
The appeal was filed by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 21.3.2012 passed by the District Judge, Additional MACT-II, I Fast Track Court, Shimoga in MVC No.650/2010, awarding compensation of Rs.9,80,900/- with interest at 6% p.a. to the claimant. The claimant, Rakshith B.S., was working as a cleaner-cum-conductor under the 2nd respondent (driver) and was employed by the 3rd respondent (owner of the lorry). On 10.4.2009, while traveling in the lorry after loading tiles, the driver drove rashly and negligently, causing the lorry to hit a roadside bridge, resulting in grievous injuries to the claimant. The claimant filed a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation. The Insurance Company contended that the claimant was an employee of the owner and thus not a third party, and the claim should be under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The court considered the submissions and perused the records. The court held that since the claimant was an employee of the owner of the vehicle, he is not a third party and the claim under the Motor Vehicles Act is not maintainable. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the award of the Tribunal, and dismissed the claim petition, leaving the claimant to seek remedy under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.
Headnote
A) Motor Vehicles Act - Third Party Claim - Employer-Employee Relationship - Section 147, 167 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The claimant, a cleaner-cum-conductor, was an employee of the owner of the lorry and sustained injuries while traveling in the course of employment. The court held that the claimant is not a third party but an employee, and therefore the claim under the Motor Vehicles Act is not maintainable. The remedy lies under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act for an employee's injury. (Paras 4-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the claimant, being an employee of the owner of the vehicle, is entitled to claim compensation as a third party under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, or whether the claim lies under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The judgment and award dated 21.3.2012 passed in MVC No.650/2010 on the file of District Judge, Additional MACT-II, I Fast Track Court, Shimoga is set aside. The claim petition is dismissed. The claimant is at liberty to seek remedy under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.
Law Points
- Employer-employee relationship
- Third party claim
- Motor accident compensation
- Section 147 of Motor Vehicles Act
- 1988
- Section 167 of Motor Vehicles Act
Case Details
MFA No. 5547 of 2012 (MV)
Sri A.N. Krishna Swamy for appellant; Sri Prakash Hegde K. for respondent 3
Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Rakshith B.S., B.N. Naveen, G.R. Nagaraja Pai
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal against judgment and award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarding compensation to claimant for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident.
Remedy Sought
Insurance Company sought to set aside the award on the ground that the claimant was an employee and not a third party.
Filing Reason
The claimant filed a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act for compensation for injuries sustained in an accident while traveling in the employer's lorry.
Previous Decisions
The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.9,80,900/- with interest at 6% p.a.
Issues
Whether the claimant, being an employee of the owner of the vehicle, is entitled to claim compensation as a third party under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988?
Whether the claim should be under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 instead?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant/Insurance Company argued that the claimant was an employee of the owner and thus not a third party; liability is only as per the Workmen's Compensation Act.
Respondent/Claimant argued for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act as a third party.
Ratio Decidendi
An employee of the owner of a vehicle who sustains injuries in a motor vehicle accident arising out of and in the course of employment is not a third party and cannot claim compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The remedy lies under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.
Judgment Excerpts
Learned Senior Counsel Sri.A.N.Krishna Swamy appearing for the appellant / Insurance Company submitted that, in the present case the claimant was an employee under the employment of respondent No.3 who is owner of the lorry and met with an accident and sustained injuries while proceeding in the lorry as an employee. Therefore, the liability of the appellant / Insurance Company is only as per the Workmen's Compensation Act.
In the present case, the claimant was an employee of the owner of the lorry and therefore, he is not a third party. Hence, the claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act is not maintainable.
Procedural History
The claimant filed MVC No.650/2010 before the District Judge, Additional MACT-II, I Fast Track Court, Shimoga, which awarded compensation on 21.3.2012. The Insurance Company appealed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the High Court of Karnataka.
Acts & Sections
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: 147, 167, 173(1)
- Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923:
