Jayavant Yellappa vs Nagesh Yilari

Hooniah, J.—This appeal is directed Sainst the order of the Motor Accidents aims Tribunal, Belgaum dated 30-11-1974 whereby application of the Appellants u/s 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act Was rejected.

The fact that gave rise to the claim briefly stated are these: On 2-11-1968 the truck bearing MYL 4915, belonging to Nagesh (1st Respondent and driven by one Veerabhadra. met with an accidant near the village Oondhali in Khanapar Taluk, resulting in the death of Veerabhadra. The Appellant, who is the brother of Veerabhadra, fifed an application u/s 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, hereinafter referred to as the ''Act'' claiming compensation of Rs. 20,000. Nagesh admitted that Veerabhadra was his driver at the relevant point of time and died while driving the truck. But he raised an objection before the Tribunal questioning the jurisdiction of Tribunal to entertain the claim in view of the provisions of Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923, hereinafter referred to as the ''Compensation Act''. This objection was upheld by the Tribunal. Against the said order the Appellant has come up in appeal before this Court stating that the Tribunal was wrong in rejecting the application.

From a reading of the provisions of Sections 110A to 110F it is clear that in respect of accidents involving the death or bodily injury to persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles, the remedy is by way of an application for compensation to be made to the Claims Tribunal u/s 110A. Section 110-F of the Act in express terms excludes only the jurisdiction of civil Court with respect to any action taken or to be taken before the Claims Tribunal under the Act. The Legislature is certainly aware of the provisions of the Compensation Act and the Tribunal constituted there in for adjudication of claims under the said Act. The provisions of Section 110-F, while expressly barring the jurisdiction of civil Courts as such, do not contain any indication that the jurisdiction of any other Tribunal is barred. Locking to the provisions of the Compensation Act, the jurisdiction of a civil Court alone is tarred with respect to adjudication of claims falling under the purview of the Computation Act. It is therefore clear that the provisions of each of the enactments operate independently of one another having concurrent jurisdiction to entertain claim for compensation. In such a case, the option lies with the workman to chose one or the other Tribunal. If the worknan chooses a particular Tribunal, it will No. be open to him to choose the other Tribunal. In the present case, the claimant having chosen the Tribunal under the Act, it is not open to the employer to ask him to choose a different Tribunal, for, the choice lies with the claimant and not with employer. This view finds support in Ram Sarup and Another Vs. Gurdev Singh and Another, . In that case a cleaner employed on a truck died in an accident while he was on duty. His dependents filed a petition before the Workmen''s Compensation Commissioner for payment of compensation. It was contended on behalf of the Appellants that the petition was barred by the provisions of Section 110F of the Act. It was held that the Commissioner appointed under the Compensation Act was a mere Tribunal and not a civil Court within the meaning of Section 110-F of the Act and therefore the petition was not barred by the provisions of Section 110-F of the Act The same view was taken in Ogeti Pedda Ranganna Vs. Zaleka Bee and Another, It is, therefore, clear that the provisions of the Compensation At do not exclude the provisions of Section 110F of the Act.

However, on behalf of rte Respondents, the decision in Jaswant Rai Vs. National Transport and General Co. Ltd. and Another, was relied upon. In that case it was held that the Tribunal under the Act had no jurisdiction to deal with matters arising out of motor accidents resulting in the death or bodily injury of an employee dying the course of his employment and further held that such claims should be decided by the Tribunal constituted under the Compensation Act. We respectfully disagree with this view. We are of the view that in respect of claim arising out of motor accidents for compensation resulting in the death or bodily injury of an employee in the course of his employment, the claimant can seek his remedy either before the Tribunal constituted under Compensation Act or before the Tribunal constituted under the Act.

What remains to be considered is the question of compensation. The evidence in this case points out that Veerabhadra was getting a monthly salary of Rs. 150 at the time of his death. If that is so, the Appellant is entitled to get compensation as provided in Schedule IV to the Compensation Act. Reference to that shows that the amount of compensation that the Appellant is entitled to get is Rs. 7,000. We accordingly award Rs. 7,000 as compensation to the Appellant.

In the result, we allow this appeal with costs, set aside the order of the Tribunal and award compensation of Rs. 7,000 to the Appellant. This amount is liable to be paid jointly and severally by the owner and the insurer of the truck. This amount will carry interest at the rate of 5 per cent per annum from today till payment. Advocate''s fee Rs. 100.