The Bombay high court has recently has held that where the death or permanent disablement is caused to an employee in a vehicular motor accident, he is entitled to the compensation under the principle of no fault liability in addition to the compensation under the principle of fault liability. That is to say; Employee can claim compensation both under section 140 of M.V. Act & under section 3 of W.C. Act.
Facts
The appellant was a driver of the truck of respondent (The New India Assurance Company Ltd), which was insured by the respondent. The appellant met with an accident in which he sustained some physical injuries as well. On the consequence of that, the appellant served the notice to the respondent for the compensation. However none of the respondent has paid him compensation. Hence he filed an application under section 3 & 22 of the workmen’s Compensation Act before the labour commissioner, whereby the commissioner rejected his claim as he had already approached the Motor Accident claim tribunal.
Aggrieved by the order of commissioner the appellant filed the present appeal before the Bombay HC raising question, Whether the compensation granted under chapter X of the M.V. act forfeits the right of the employee to claim the compensation under section 3 of the 1923 Act as provided under Section 167 of the M.V. Act?
Procedural History
The Commissioner rejected his Claim for the reason that the appellant had already approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and had received the compensation under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988; (“M.V.Act”, for short) therefore, the Claim is barred under section 167 of the M.V. Act.
Contention Made
Petitioner: While relying upon Maroti Shrawan Manghate vs Smt. Rita Y. Sapra and Anr. [2018 (1) All MR. 700]; The counsel argued that the learned Commissioner has misread and misinterpreted section 167 of the M.V. Act. An application under Section 140 of M.V. Act has been excepted from the bar envisaged in Section 169 of M.V. Act & an application for compensation either under the Workmen’s Compensation Act or M.V. Act, is maintainable.
Respondent: There is no substance in the appeal. If the court concludes that the appeal deserved to be allowed, the matter should be remitted to the learned Commissioner, as the application has been decided without answering all the issues framed.
Court Observation
The bench observed that the bare reading of the section reveals that the option as envisaged in section 167 of the M.V. Act is for claiming compensation either under the W.C.Act or M. V. Act. Chapter X of the M.V. Act deals with liability without fault in certain cases. Said chapter contains Sections 140 to 144. It has been provided in the said section that the compensation under this chapter is in addition to the right to claim compensation under the principle of fault except the right to claim under section 163-A of the M.V.Act.
Judgment
The words in section 167 of M.V. Act, “Without prejudice to the provisions of Chapter X”, are self speaking to interpret the said section that an application decided by the Claims Tribunal under section 140 of the said Act, does not bar the employee from availing remedy for compensation under the 1923 Act. Where the employee receives compensation under Chapter X of the M.V. Act, his remedy to seek compensation either under the 1923 Act or the M.V. Act cannot be forfeited under section 167.
The bench opined that the learned Commissioner has misread & misinterpreted Section 167 of the M.V. Act & reverted back the matter to the commissioner of employee compensation.
Case: Narayan vs Mrs. Sangita and anr
Citation: First Appeal No. 522 of 2022
Bench: Justice S.G. Mehare
Decided: 6th June, 2022.
Picture Source :
