The Rajasthan High Court has ruled that a victim cannot be allowed to claim compensation under two diferrent statutes simultaneously.
The single-judge bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that the claimant has to make a choice between the forums and once settled, cannot roll back the same jumping to another.
Brief Facts of the Case
The claimants-appellants filed a claim petition before MACT seeking compensation. It was pleaded that at the time of accident, deceased was working as a driver and because of his sudden demise in the aforesaid accident, his dependents (appellants herein) suffered not only economic loss but also emotional. The Insurance Company, however objected to the same and averred that the claimants-appellants have already got compensation from the Workmen Compensation Commissioner.
The Tribunal took the contention of the Insurer into account and dismissed the claim petition while holding that since the claimants-appellants have already got compensation under Section 22 of the Act of 1923, they are not entitled to file subsequent application for getting compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act in view of Section 167 of the Act of 1988.
Aggrieved, the claimants-appellants preferred the present appeal.
High Court's Observation
Learned Counsel for the claimants-appellants vehemently submitted that the doctrine of election provided for in Section 167 of the Act of 1988 does not apply where the claimants have right to proceed against the employer under the Act of 1923 and against the tortfeasor; a different person under the provisions of the Act of 1988. He further submitted that the bar under Section 167 of the Act of 1988 is only against the availing of two remedies against the same employer under both the enactments namely Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 and the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
He averred that that the respondents in both the claim petitions were different even though the insurer was common, and thus the insurance company cannot be absolved from its liability to pay compensation under two separate insurance contracts.
He went on to argue that the compensation awarded by the Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, can be adjusted in a subsequent claim filed by the claimants-appellants before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal under the provisions of the Act of 1988.
He placed reliance on Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Dyamavva & Ors., 2013 Latest Caselaw 107 SC
Contrary, the Insurance Company submitted that in view of bar under Section 167 of the Act of 1988 and also under Section 3(5) of the Act of 1923, the claimantslegal representatives of the deceased could not claim double benefit under both the enactments. Therefore, the subsequent claim under the Act of 1988 was liable to be dismissed and the same was rightly rejected by the Court below holding that the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay compensation. It cited National Insurance Company Vs. Mastan & ANR, 2005 Latest Caselaw 684 SC
The Court at the outset obsreved that bare perusal of Section 167 of the Act of 1988 statutorily provides for an option to the claimant stating that where the death of, or bodily injury to any person gives rise to a claim for compensation under the Act of 1988 as also under the Act of 1923, the person entitled to compensation may without prejudice to the provisions of Chapter X claim such compensation under either of those Acts but not under both.
Doctrine of Election
Section 167 contains a non obstante clause providing for such an option notwithstanding anything contained in the Act of 1923. The “doctrine of election” is a branch of “rule of estoppel”, in terms whereof a person may be precluded by his actions or conduct or silence when it is his duty to speak, from asserting a right which he otherwise would have had. The doctrine of election postulates that when two remedies are available for the same relief, the aggrieved party has the option to elect either of them but not both with some exceptions.
The Court also referred to A. Trehan Vs. Associated Electrical Agencies wherein the SC held that bar under Section 53 of the Employees Stat.e Insurance Act, 1948 takes away the right of the workman who is insured person and an employee under the ESI Act to claim compensation under the Workman’s Compensation Act, 1923.
After mentioning few High Court precedents as well, the Court noted that in view of the settled position of law, the claimants cannot be allowed to take double benefit of two claims filed under two different statutes i.e. under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923.
"The claimant has to choose one forum only and after choosing a forum, he cannot be allowed to choose another forum to get more benefits. The claimants cannot claim double benefit under both the enactments. The appellants-claimants have got compensation by invoking the provisions of the Act of 1923. Therefore, the subsequent claim filed by the claimants under the Act of 1988 was liable to be rejected and the same was rightly rejected by the Tribunal."
The appeal was thus dimissed.
Read Judgement Here:
Picture Source :