- The Honourable High Court of Rajasthan (Jaipur Bench) in the case of Prem & Ors. V. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. [Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1799/2011]has held that that once claim under workmen compensation act was validly claimed, a subsequent petition for claim under Motor Vehicle act was not maintainable.
- The claimants filed a claim petition before the appropriate Motor Vehicle Tribunal seeking compensation on account of death of Ram Lal who died in an accident 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 appellants suffered economic loss and were also deprived from his love, affection and care.
- The present appeal challenged a judgement and award by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (MACT) by which the petition of claimants was dismissed on the ground that the claimants had already got compensation in a petition filed by them under the provisions of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923.
- Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the bar under Section 167 of the Motor Vehicle Act,1988 would only be against availing of two remedies against the same employer under both the enactments and that the doctrine of election (choosing between two alternative rights) would not apply in the present case.
- It was argued that the compensation under Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, can be adjusted in a subsequent claim filed by appellants before the MACT. The decision of the Apex Court in case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. V. Dyamavva & Ors. was relied for this contention.
- Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that, in light of bar under Section 167, the claimants could 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.
- The court observed that the present appeal had similar circumstances and facts, as in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Bidami, where it was held by the Apex Court that the person entitled to compensation may claim such compensation under either of the Acts but not under both. The doctrine of election lays down that when two remedies are available for the same relief, the aggrieved party had the option to elect. Although there had been certain exceptions to the same rule but the same had no application in circumstances of instant petition.
- The aforesaid judgment was delivered on 17.04.2014 while the judgment relied on by the counsel for the appellants was delivered on 05.02.2013. It is the settled position of law that the later view taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court would prevail over the earlier view.
- The Argument of Counsel for adjustment of claim received earlier with the claim to be awarded was 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 have not got sufficient amount of compensation.
- It was held that 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 Motor Accident Claim Tribunal was affirmed.
"Loved reading this piece by Neeraj?
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!!"
