AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G.M. Akbar Ali, J.—The civil miscellaneous appeal is filed against the decree and judgment made in M.C.O.P. No. 3013 of 1999 dated 05.11.2003 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (I Additional District Court), PCR, Trichy. The appellant is the 2nd respondent and the claimants are the parents and sister of the deceased one V. Maruthamuthu.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
The deceased one Maruthamuthu, died in a motor accident which took place on 20.05.1997 at 3.30 am near Surat. On that day, the deceased, a Cleaner cum Additional Driver of the lorry bearing registration No. TN-28/C-9898 belonging to the 1st respondent was travelling as in the said vehicle. At that time another vehicle GOA-5284 came in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the said lorry. Due to the impact, the said Maruthamuthu sustained grievous injury and died on the spot. The claimants, who are the legal heirs have claimed a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation before the Tribunal. The vehicle belongs to the 4th respondent herein, insured with the appellant/Insurance Company, who resisted the claim on the ground that the accident having been caused by the another vehicle GOA-5284 and therefore, the claimants ought to have laid their claim only against the owner and insurer of the said vehicle and the claim before the Tribunal is not sustainable as it comes under Workmen Compensation Act.
The Tribunal had framed the following issues:
(i) Whether the claimants are entitled to any compensation under the Workmen Compensation Act?
(ii) Whether the claimants are entitled to any compensation?
After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the claimants are entitled to compensation under the Workmen Compensation Act and has granted a sum of Rs. 3,06000/- as compensation. Aggrieved by the award the insurance company has preferred this appeal.
The learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that the deceased was appointed as cleaner cum additional driver and when the deceased was working for changing the tyre of the said lorry, which was a statutory one, near the bye pass gate, another vehicle GOA-5284 dashed against the said lorry, due to which, the said deceased died and therefore, he died during the course of employment under the first respondent and that the claim under Motor Vehicles Act does not maintainable and the claimants can very well approach the Commissioner of Labour for claiming compensation under Workmen''s Compensation Act. The learned Counsel for the appellant also questioned the liability and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and the jurisdiction. He further submitted that the award is liable to be set aside as the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition. The learned Counsel for the appellant questioned the Tribunal has no jurisdiction and he relied on a decision of this Court reported in 2003(2) CTC 2009.
The learned Counsel for the respondents/claimants submitted that the aggrieved persons can file claim petition for compensation either under Motor Vehicles Act or under Workmen''s Compensation Act. He relied on a decision of this Court reported in 2002(4) CTC 469 (The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Kaliya Pillai and two Ors.) wherein this Court has held as follows:
Maintainability of claim filed under Motor Vehicles Act - Aggrieved persons can file claim for compensation either under Motor Vehicles Act or under Workmen'' Compensation Act and not under both.
Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3.
While considering the first issue, the Tribunal had relied on a judgment of this Court reported in 2002(4) CTC 469 (The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kaliya Pillai) wherein this Court has held as follows:
Death due to rash and negligent driving of Tractor and Trailer - Maintainability of claim filed under Motor Vehicles Act - Aggrieved persons can file claim for compensation either under Motor Vehicles Act or under Workmen''s Compensation Act and not under both.
This Court had an occasion to deal with the similar matter in C.M.A. (MD) No. 92 of 2005 and has held as
under Section 167 of the Act the claimant has options either to claim compensation under the Workmen''s Compensation Act or under the Motor Vehicles Act and therefore, the claim petition is maintainable.
Therefore, it is clear that the claimants are entitled to claim the compensation under the Workmen''s Compensation Act or under the Motor Vehicles Act. The finding of the Tribunal does not require interference of this Court.
While considering the 2nd issue, it is found that the deceased was 25 years old at the time of accident. He was working as a Cleaner cum Additional Driver. After considering the oral and documentary evidence and after deducting one third towards his personal expenses, the Tribunal had calculated the annual income of the deceased at Rs. 18,000/-. After applying the multiplier 17, the Tribunal calculated the compensation at Rs. 3,06,000/- payable by the appellant/Insurance Company. In respect of the second issue, the Tribunal has awarded a just and reasonable compensation by applying the schedule. Therefore, I have no reason to interfere with that.
In view of the foregoing reasons, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs. 3,06,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition is confirmed.
Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed.