National Insurance Company Limited vs Hari Singh and Others

Sham Sunder, J.—This revision-petition is directed against the order dated 29.03.1996, rendered by the Commissioner, under Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923, vide which the application, moved by the petitioner (now revision petitioner), for dismissing the petition, at the preliminary stage, was declined.

Ram Saran, aged about 23 years, working as driver on tractor No. HYF-3558, died on 24.07.1993 while driving the same, when he met with an accident, during the course of his employment, near the wine factory, Hisar. The vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company and, thus, an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- was claimed as compensation by filing a petition by the claimants before the Workmen''s Compensation Commissioner. The National Insurance Company (revision petitioner) moved an application before the Workmen''s Compensation Commissioner, praying for dismissal of the petition, as the claimants had already filed a petition, bearing No. 54-MACT of 1993, u/s 16 of the Motor Vehicles Act, titled as Hari Singh v. Man Singh etc., before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar, claiming compensation on account of the death of Ram Saran and the Claims Tribunal had awarded Rs. 86,400/- as compensation on 31.08.1995. That application was dismissed by the Workmen''s Compensation Commissioner holding that the claimants could resort to both the remedies, under the Motor Vehicles Act, as also under the Workmen''s Compensation Act.

Feeling aggrieved against the order impugned, vide which the application filed by the National Insurance Company, was dismissed, the instant revision petition, was filed by the revision petitioner,

I have heard the counsel for the parties, and have gone through the documents, on record, carefully.

The counsel for the revision-petitioner, submitted that the claimants could file the petition for compensation, either before the Workmen''s Compensation Commissioner, or before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. He further submitted that since already, the compensation had been awarded to the claimants, on account of the death of Ram Saran, in a motor vehicle accident, due to the rash or negligent driving of the offending vehicle by Bhagwan Singh, the petition filed under the Workmen''s Compensation Act. relating to the same accident, was not maintainable. He placed reliance on National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mastan and Another, , Trading Engineering, New Delhi v. Nirmala Devi and Anr. 1980 ACJ 230 and Smt. Dropti Devi and Ors. v. Modern Auto Enterprises and Anr. (1987)91 P.L.R. 28, in support of his contention.

On the other hand, the Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, could not dispute the legal proposition, that he claimants could either file a petition claiming compensation, on account of the death of Ram Saran, deceased, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, or before the Workmen''s Compensation Commissioner, but not before both the Authorities, in respect of the same accident.

After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, the petition deserves to be accepted, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. The claimant could only claim compensation, either under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or under the Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923, in respect of the same accident, but not under both. It is evident, from the record, that the petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was filed on 10.02.1993 and the said Tribunal awarded compensation, in the sum of Rs. 86,400/-, on 31.08.1995. The claimants filed another petition for compensation before the Workmen''s Compensation Commissioner. Once the claimants had opted for the remedy, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, and had been awarded compensation, for the same accident, in which Ram Saran died, under the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, they could not file a petition for compensation, before the Workmen''s Compensation Commissioner, relating to the same accident. In National Insurance Company''s case (supra), compensation had been granted under the Workmen''s Compensation Act. In these circumstances, it was held by the Apex Court, that the claim could not be maintained under both the Acts. Similar principle of law, was laid down in Trading Engineering, New Delhi''s and Smt. Dropti Devi and Ors. cases (supra), relied upon by the Counsel for the revision-petitioner. Since the petition under the Workmen''s Compensation Act was not maintainable, the Workmen''s Compensation Commissioner, was required to dismiss the same, at the preliminary stage.

The order impugned, passed by the Workmen''s Compensation Commissioner, thus, suffers from illegality, and perversity, warranting interference of this Court, in its revisional jurisdictional, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the order impugned, is liable to be set aside.

For the reasons recorded above, the revision petition is accepted. The order impugned is set aside.