Date of Judgement:
11th March 2022
Coram/judge:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand
Parties to the Case:
Claimant/Appellants
1. Prem W/o Ram Lal
2. Morpal S/o Ram Lal
3. Nirma D/o Ram Lal
Respondents
1. Amar Jeet Singh S/o Gurdev Singh
2. Oriental Insurance Company Limited Division Office Tonk having its Regional Office at Anand Bhawan, Sansar Chand Road, Jaipur through its Regional Manager
3. Jarnel Singh (Deleted)
Legal Provisions
- Section 22 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923- which deals with the application for claim of compensation under the act
- Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988- the provision prohibits dual claim of compensation, in case of a motor vehicle accident.
- Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988- it includes provisions for who all can apply for compensation in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in case of a road accident.
Overview
- The claimants filed a claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation on account of the death of Ram Lal, who died in an accident that occurred on 07.11.1991. The deceased was working as a driver. Due to his sudden demise in the accident during the course of employment, the claimants suffered economic loss and were also deprived of his love, affection and care.
- The insurance company had submitted that the claimants have already got compensation from the Workmen Compensation Commissioner. So, the petition filed by the claimants should not be maintainable.
- The claim petition filed by the claimants was dismissed by the tribunal stating that they had already received the compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
- Arguments Advanced by The Appellants
- Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the doctrine of election (choosing between two alternative rights) envisaged in Section 167 of the Act of 1988 would not apply where the claimants have right to proceed against the employer under Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 and against the tortfeasor under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.
- The bar under Section 167 of the Act of 1988 would only be in a situation when two remedies are availed against the same employer under both the enactments.
- It was further submitted that the respondents in both the claim petitions were different. The insurance company was common, but it cannot be discharged from its liability to pay compensation under two separate insurance contracts.
- It was argued that the compensation under Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, would be adjusted in a subsequent claim filed by appellants before the MACT. The decision of the Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. V. Dyamavva & Ors. Was relied upon for this contention.
Arguments Advanced by The Respondents
- Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that, in light of bar under Section 167, the claimants should not claim double benefit under both the enactments. The subsequent claim under the M.V. Act was rightly rejected by the Subordinate Court holding that the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay compensation. Various leading case laws were cited in support of the contention.
Issue
Whether the claimants/appellants can file two claim petitions for getting compensation under section 22 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 and under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and be entitled to compensation under both?
Judgment Analysis
- In the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Bidami, it was held that the person entitled to compensation may claim such compensation under either of the Acts but not under both. The “doctrine of election” is a branch of “rule of estoppel”, in terms whereof a person may be prevented, by his actions or conduct or silence when it was his duty to speak, from exercising a right which he would have had otherwise. The doctrine of election lays down that when two remedies are available for the same relief, the aggrieved party would have the option to elect either of them but not both. Although there had been certain exceptions to the same rule but the same had no application in circumstances of the instant petition.
- The court observed that the present appeal had similar circumstances and facts, that the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court was delivered on 17.04.2014 while the judgment relied on by the counsel for the appellants was delivered on 05.02.2013. It’s a well-settled position of law that the later view taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court would prevail over the earlier view.
- A series of leading Judgments were cited by the Learned Judge in which the Apex Court had held that claimants have no right to approach both the forums i.e., under M.V. Act as well as Workmen Compensation Act. He can opt for one remedy and such option must be consciously chosen. The same should be done before adjudication of the claim.
- The Argument of Counsel for adjustment of claim received earlier with the claim to be awarded was held as not tenable as the Courts cannot be treated as a bargaining forum. Claimants cannot be allowed to approach other forums if they feel that they did not get a sufficient amount of compensation.
- The claimant had to choose one forum only and after choosing a forum, he cannot be allowed to choose another forum to get more benefits. Hence, the appeal was dismissed and the award and judgement of MACT were upheld.
Conclusion
The Honourable High Court, in light of a well-established proposition of law, reiterated the Apex Court’s view in matters of right of entitlement of compensation to the legal heirs and dependents of the deceased. The judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Motor Accident Claim Case were affirmed and confirmed. It was held that once the claim under workmen compensation act was validly claimed, a subsequent petition for claim under Motor Vehicle act was not maintainable.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
