The New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Gayatri &Ors;
2014 Latest Caselaw 5544 Del

$~A-4
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                            Date of decision: 07.11.2014

+     MAC.APP. 185/2010

      THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.      ..... Appellant
                    Through Mr. Shoumik Mazumdar, Advocate

                          versus
      GAYATRI &ORS                                       ...... Respondents
                          Through     None

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
JAYANT NATH, J. (ORAL)

1. The present appeal is filed seeking to impugn the award dated 30.10.2009.

2. The brief facts are that the deceased Dev Dutt Sharma while going to Mata Vaishno Devi was driving his Tata Sumo. The FIR mentions that the deceased lost control while driving his vehicle rashly and hit against a bus which was driven by one Mr. Sham Lal coming from the opposite direction. In the accident the deceased died.

3. The present claim was filed under Section 166, Motor Vehicles Act. As two vehicles were involved and composite negligence was sought. The deceased was an employee of respondent No.6. The vehicle was insured with the appellant.

4. The Tribunal did not accept the plea of the claimants to convert the petition into one under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal, however, held that the claimants were entitled to seek compensation paid to workman under Section 4 of the Workmen's

Compensation Act. Based on the same, the Tribunal computed the compensation as payable under the said Workmen's Compensation Act at Rs.3,09,918/-.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the impugned award is erroneous as it was not for the Tribunal to award compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The Tribunal could only award compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act and that the appropriate authority namely the Commissioner has to pass the compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act.

6. Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act reads as under:-

"167. Option regarding claims for compensation in certain cases.-

Notwithstanding anything contained in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 to 1923) where the death of, or bodily injury to, any person gives rise to a claim for compensation under this Act and also under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 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."

7. Hence what the Section states is that a person is entitled to compensation in either of the two Acts, namely, the Workmen's Compensation Act or the Motor Vehicles Act but not under both.

8. In somewhat similar circumstances the Supreme Court in 'National Insurance Company Limited vs. Hamida Khatoon and Others' (2009) 13 Supreme Court Cases 361 had in view of Employees' State Insurance Act specially Section 53 which is bar against receiving any compensation or damages under the Workmen's Compensation Act or any other law held that the entitlement would be worked out by the MACT taking note of Section 53 of the Employees' State Insurance Act.

9. Reference may be had to Smt. Rita Devi and Ors. vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Anr., AIR 2000 SC 1930 where in para 15 the Supreme Court held as follows:

"15. Learned Counsel for the respondents contended before us that since the Motor Vehicles Act has not defined the word 'death' and the legal interpretations relied upon by us are with reference to definition of the word 'death' in Workmen's Compensation Act, the same will not be applicable while interpreting the word 'death' in Motor Vehicles Act because according to her, the objects of the two Acts are entirely different. She also contends on the facts of this case no proximity could be presumed between the murder of the driver and the stealing of the autorickshaw. We are unable to accept this contention; advanced on behalf of the respondents. We do not see how the objects of the two Acts, namely the Motor Vehicles Act and the Workmen's Compensation Act are in any way different. In our opinion, the relevant object of both the Acts is to provide compensation to the victims of accidents. The only difference between the two enactments is that so far as the Workmen's Compensation Act is concerned, it is confined to workmen as defined under that Act while the relief provided under Chapters X to XII of the Motor Vehicles Act is available to all the victims of accidents involving a motor vehicle. In this conclusion of ours, we are supported by Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act as per which provision, it is open to the claimants either to proceed to claim compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act or under the Motor Vehicles Act. A perusal of the objects of the two enactments clearly establishes that both the enactments are beneficial enactments operating in the same field, hence judicially accepted interpretation of the word 'death' in Workmen's Compensation Act is, in our opinion, applicable to the interpretation of the word death in the Motor Vehicles Act also."

10. Clearly the Tribunal was within its jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim

under the Workmen's Compensation act. There is nothing in Section 167 which states that the Tribunal has to refer the claimants to the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act. There is no merit in the appeal. The same is dismissed.

JAYANT NATH, J NOVEMBER 07, 2014 an