Date of Judgment:
8th April 2022.
Bench:
Mr. RMT. Teekaa Raman, J.
Parties:
Appellant– R.Geethabanu.
Respondents – Government of Tamil Nadu.
Subject
The Hon’ble High Court(hereinafter referred to as ‘Hon’ble High Court’ or ‘the Court’), in the present instance, held that in the same accident, the aggrieved party cannot submit claim petitions under both the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 and the Workmen Compensation Act of 1923. The court also ruled that prior judgments by other High Courts in this matter were no longer binding.
Legal Provisions
The Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923:
- Section 4(1)(a) – which states the circumstances under which a landlord can evict the tenant for the same the landlord has to make an application to the Controller office for the recovery of the immovable property/possession.
- Section 30 –states that an appeal should lie to the High Court from the following order of a Commissioner if an order giving a lump sum as damages, whether by reimbursement of a half-month payment or otherwise, or disallowing a claim for a lump sum in whole or in part.
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
- Section 173 – states that each High Court shall have authority over all courts and tribunals in the territories in which it practices (apart from a court shaped under a law related to military or armed forces).
BRIEF FACTS
- In this instant petition were in the first appeal, in this case, was for an increment in the award made by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai, due to an error in estimating the petitioner's father's salary at the time of his death, the Deputy Commissioner had mistakenly given the petitioner Rs. 2000 instead of Rs. 5835.
- The appellant here in this instance is Ramachandran's legal counsel, who worked as a driver for the respondent, the Commercial Tax Officer, Government of Tamil nadu, it is known that on the 25th of March, 1998, while on duty, he died as a result of injuries sustained in a traffic accident between his Jeep and a Lorry.
- The claim petitioners have attested postmortem certificate, salary certificate, a rough sketch of the accident, and death certificate in the said inquiry.
- Further, based on both oral and material evidence, the Commissioner of Workman Compensation granted Rs.1,32,950/- coupled with Rs.1000/- for burial costs, as well as 12% interest from the date of the petition.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether the learned Deputy Commissioner is right in fixing the salary of the deceased?
- Whether the learned Deputy Commissioner is right in neighboring the award the interest to the award after one month from the date of the accident?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANTS
- The Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant contended that the petitioners are entitled to damages since the income of the petitioner's father, who was killed in the accident, was fixed at Rs.5,835/-.
- Further submitting that the learned Deputy Commissioner miscalculated in computing the remuneration without any reason while accepting the deceased's income of Rs.5,835/- and decreasing it to Rs.2,000/- without any justification, there was no just reason attributed to the aforesaid reduction of the compensation associated.
- The Counsels for the appellant pleaded that the order passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner shall be relooked into and just and fair compensation shall be awarded to the claim petitioners in the best interest of justice since no reason was attributed to the said reduction of damages letting the petitioners family suffer the consequences of the losing their family member.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENTS
- The Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents contended that according to the provisions under Section 4(1) interpretation, the optimum cap for monthly wages is Rs.40,000/- and on the date of the accident, namely, 25/03/1998, and for the determination of the amount, 50% has to be taken as per provision under Section 4(1)(a), and thus made a submission in support of the grant.
- Furthermore, the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the insurance company contended that the claim petitioner may not file a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act and a claim petition under the Workmen's Compensation Act at the same time.
- The learned counsel substantiated this statement by stating that in the accident lawsuit, the petitioners sought compensation from the owners of the vehicle, who was not the employer of the deceased, additionally, they have also filed a Workmen's Compensation claim against the deceased's company and received compensation, upon which they filed the other related Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
ANALYSIS BY THE COURT
- The Hon’ble High Court noted that the income ceiling limit of Rs.4000/- by itself must be rectified, and in light of the specific provision under Section 4(1)(a) of the Workmen Compensation Act, since 50 percent of the deceased's monthly wages could be multiplied by the relevant factor, and thus the Deputy Commissioner's calculation of Rs.1,31,950/- is justifiable and accurate for the age of 55.
- The Court further stated that the claimants are entitled to interest of 12% percent on the decided amount from the date of the incident, but in the previous proceeding the Deputy Commissioner has granted interest from the date of the respective petition which is not justifiable on the part of the petitioners.
- Further, the Court has observed the differential in time of the accident and the time when the suit was instituted by the petitioners regarding the aforesaid matter is roughly estimated to be around 10 years and the Court has stated that the income ceiling limit of Rs.4000/- by itself must be rectified.
- The Hon’ble Court placed reliance on the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd v. Siby Charge and Others, where they stated that the claimants are entitled to 12 percent only from the date of the accident, and subsequently the same was followed by the High Court in another such instance where the similarly the interest of 12 % was awarded from the date of the incident.
- Additionally, the Hon’ble Court noted that the claim petitioners have filed an MCOP demanding compensation against the owner of the vehicle, who is not his employer, and the insurance of the lorry that hit the dead, further they have also a similar complaint under Workmen’s Compensation Act against the deceased employer.
- Likewise the Court referred to the case of United India Insurance Co., Ltd., v. Anthony Selvam, 2014, in which it was held that if a claim is made under the MV Act against the owner of the offending vehicle who was the deceased and the said driver or insurer of the said vehicle after the passage of the award through the MACT, a claim under the Employees Compensation Act of 1923 will be filed against the deceased or injured person who was no a respondent in the claim.
- But after due evaluation by the Deputy Commissioner, the Commissioner shall direct the employer and its insurer to pay the differential amount between the amount calculated under the Employees Compensation Act and the amount awarded in the MACT.
- The Court concluded its observation by citing the case of Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited v. Astalingam and others, where the learned Court based on the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in, a single judge of this Bench has decided that its claim petition under both clauses of the Act is maintainable.
CONCLUSION
Allowing the appeal partially the Court accepted the contentions put forth by the Insurance Company that the claim petitioners cannot file simultaneous suits for the claim of damages and the same cannot be sustained, further, the claim petition submitted under the Motor Vehicles Act was dismissed because the dead's pay exceeded the statutory maximum and that the deceased was given permission to relocate under the Workmen's Compensation Act, and thus on the facts and circumstances of the case.
Thus holding that claim submitted under the Workmen's Payout Act is dismissed, with the Deputy Commissioner of Labor determining that the compensation was just and fair, also order passed in the claim petition filed under Motor Vehicles Act also stands dismissed as not maintainable under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
