Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Maroti Shrawan Manghate, was a driver employed by respondent No.1, Smt. Rita Y. Sapra, to drive truck bearing registration No.MH31 4091, which was insured with respondent No.2, National Insurance Company Limited. On 22.3.1991, while driving the truck from Tumsar to Nagpur on National Highway No.7, a head-on collision occurred with another truck coming from the opposite direction. The appellant suffered grievous injuries, including the severance of his right paw, and was hospitalized from 22.3.1991 to 4.4.1991. He was 22 years old at the time, earning Rs.900 per month plus Rs.50 daily allowance, totaling Rs.1,350 per month. The accident resulted in permanent disability assessed at 50%. The appellant initially invoked the jurisdiction of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and received Rs.12,000 as compensation on no fault principle. Subsequently, he filed a claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 seeking further compensation of Rs.1,49,424.75 from the respondents. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation rejected the claim in W.C.A. No.26/2003 on 21st July, 2005, holding that the appellant had already availed the remedy under the MV Act and could not claim again under the WC Act. The appellant appealed under Section 30(1)(a) of the WC Act. The High Court framed the issue whether the prior receipt of compensation under the MV Act bars a claim under the WC Act. The court noted that the two enactments operate in different fields: the MV Act provides for compensation to third parties and victims of motor accidents, while the WC Act provides for compensation to workmen for injuries arising out of and in the course of employment. The court held that the remedies are not mutually exclusive and that there is no provision in either Act that prohibits a workman from claiming under both. The claim under Section 140 MV Act is an interim measure on no fault basis, not a final adjudication. The principle of election of remedies does not apply as the remedies are not inconsistent. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the Commissioner's order, and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication on merits, directing the Commissioner to decide the claim in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Workmen's Compensation - Employer's Liability - Permanent Disability - Sections 3, 30(1)(a) Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - The appellant, a driver, suffered permanent disability (loss of right paw) in a motor accident during employment. He initially received Rs.12,000 under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on no fault basis. He then filed a claim under the WC Act for further compensation. The Commissioner rejected the claim on the ground that the appellant had already availed remedy under the MV Act. The High Court held that the two remedies are distinct and not mutually exclusive; receipt of interim compensation under MV Act does not bar a claim under WC Act. The court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication on merits. (Paras 1-12) B) Workmen's Compensation - Option of Remedies - Election - Sections 3, 30(1)(a) Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - The court considered whether the appellant had made an election of remedies by claiming under the MV Act. It held that the claim under Section 140 MV Act is a no fault interim measure, not a final determination of compensation. The WC Act provides a separate remedy for workmen. There is no provision in either Act that bars a subsequent claim under the other. The principle of election does not apply as the remedies are not inconsistent. (Paras 8-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether an employee who has received compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on no fault principle is barred from claiming further compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 for the same injury.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The impugned award dated 21st July, 2005 passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation in W.C.A. No.26/2003 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Commissioner for fresh adjudication on merits in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear before the Commissioner on 28th August, 2017.
Law Points
- Workmen's Compensation Act
- 1923
- Section 30(1)(a)
- Motor Vehicles Act
- 1988
- Section 140
- Option of remedies
- Election of remedies
- Compensation for permanent disability
