- In R. Geethabanu v. Government of Tamil Nadu and Yamuna Devi(Died) v. Abdul Raheem and Ors, the bench of Justice Rmt. Teeka Raman observed that Motor Vehicles Act and Workmen's Compensation Act are no longer a part of good law and that an individual cannot be held liable under both the Motor Vehicles Act and the Workmen's Compensation Act for the same accident.
- In this case, the first appeal was for an increase in the award issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai, due to a mistake in calculating the petitioner's father's payment at the time of his death. The petitioner had been assigned Rs. 2000 instead of Rs. 5835 by mistake by the DC. In addition, an allegation stating that the DC had miscalculated and issued interest from the date of the petition instead of the date of the accident was also made. Furthermore, the petitioners requested the dismissal of the MCOP, which determined that the deceased was a worker who was provided with labour under the WCA and that his accident occurred while he was engaged in the Government Department. To this, the Insurance company raised a point for consideration that stated whether the claim petitioner could file a petition for claiming compensation under both the provisions.
- Section 4(1)(a) of The Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 stipulates that any payment received by the worker from his employer for medical care will not be construed to be a payment received by him as compensation within the scope of clause (a) of the proviso.
- In a relevant case, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Siby Charge and others (2012), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the claimants are entitled to 12% only from the accident date. The same was followed in Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co., Ltd., v. M.Mutharasi and others (2015).
- In another noteworthy case, Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Astalingam and others (2012), it was held that the claim petition under both the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Workmen's Compensation Act are maintainable based upon the decision of Rajasthan High Court in New India Assurance Co., Ltd., vs. Bidami (2009).
- After hearing both parties and referring to the aforementioned cases, the Hon'ble Court held that the claim petition under the Act's provisions was maintainable. It further determined that based on the date of the accident and in light of the provision under Section 4(1)(a) of the Workmen Compensation Act, 50 percent of the deceased's monthly wages could be multiplied by the relevant factor, and thus the calculation done by the Deputy Commissioner was fair and accurate. Additionally, the Court held that a person may be prevented from asserting a right that he otherwise would have had by his acts, behaviour, or silence when it is his responsibility to speak under the doctrine of election, which is a subset of the rule of estoppel.
- Therefore, the claim petitions filed under Motor Vehicles Act and the Workmen's Compensation Act were dismissed by the Hon'ble HC.
"Loved reading this piece by Sharmishta?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
