Gujarat High Court
Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd vs Chana Madeva Varchand on 30 January, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13338/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13338 of 2023
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to No
see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of No
the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of No
law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of
India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD
Versus
CHANA MADEVA VARCHAND
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS MASUMI V NANAVATY(9321) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR CHIRAG B AYDI(13146) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
MR. MAULIK M SONI(7249) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT
Date : 30/01/2024
ORAL JUDGMENT
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13338/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2024
undefined
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Chirag Aydi, learned
advocate waives service of rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 2
and 3.
2. This petition is filed challenging the order dated
01.06.2023 below Exh.12, of Labour Court, Gandhidham, in
Workmen Compensation (Fatal) Case No.14 of 2015, wherein
the application filed by the petitioner-Insurance Company
seeking deduction of the amount already paid to the claimant,
pursuant to the order in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.
233 of 2013 has been rejected.
3. The brief facts referred in the petition are as under:
3.1. The petitioner is an Insurance Company with whom the
vehicle bearing registration No. GJ-12-AU-5856 was insured.
Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the original claimants and
deceased Babu Merajram Bhil expired in the accident occurred
between Tanker bearing registration No. GJ-12-AU-5856 and
Dumper bearing registration No. GJ-12-AW-4748. It was case
of the deceased before the Motor Accident Claim's Tribunal
that Tanker No. GJ-12-AU-5856 was stationary when the
Dumper No. GJ-12-AW-4748 dashed on the rear side and
resulted into death of Babu Merajram Bhil. For the said
accident the legal heirs of deceased filed Motor Accident Claim
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13338/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2024
undefined
Petition No.233 of 2013 at Gandhidham, which came to be
settled and disposed of by an order dated 21.02.2015 by
awarding compensation of Rs.4 lakhs. It is not in dispute that
the said amount of Rs.4 lakhs has been paid to the legal heirs
of the deceased. Thereafter one another application under
Workmen's Compensation Act was preferred, wherein the
petitioner - Insurance Company filed an application below
Exh.12, seeking deduction of compensation already paid to the
legal heirs of the deceased in the Motor Accident Claim
Petition. The said application was rejected by an order dated
01.06.2023, against which, the present petition is filed.
4. Heard Ms. Masumi Nanavaty, learned advocate for the
petitioner and Mr. Mr. Chiraj Aydi, learned advocate for
respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
5. Ms. Nanavaty, learned advocate for the petitioner
submitted that the order dated 01.06.2023 by Labour Court,
Gandhidham is erroneous since it has failed to consider
provision of Section 167 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Section
167 of M.V.Act, provides that, any person gives rise to a claim
for compensation under M.V.Act 1988 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13338/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2024
undefined
but not under both. Therefore, since the legal heirs of
workman have been awarded compensation under the
provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, they are not entitled for
compensation under Workmen's Compensation Act. Therefore,
an application was filed by the petitioner -insurance Company
seeking deduction of the amount which has been paid to the
original claimants under Motor Accident Claims Act. Learned
advocate in support of her submission relied upon the decision
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Dyamavva and Ors. reported in (2013) 9
SCC 406. She, therefore, submitted that the order dated
01.06.2023 being erroneous deserves to be quashed and set
aside.
6. On the other hand, Mr. Aydi, learned advocate for
respondent Nos. 2 and 3 could not dispute the fact that
pursuant to the award in Motor Accident Claim Petition 233 of
2013 the original claimants (respondents herein) had received
the total compensation settled of Rs.4 lakhs. The Pursish of
payment is also placed on record.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Dyamavva and Ors., reported in (2013)
9 SCC 406 has held as under:
"11. Having perused the aforesaid provisions and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13338/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2024
undefined
determined their effect, it cleanly emerges, that the
Port Trust had initiated proceedings for paying
compensation to the dependants of the deceased
Yalgurdappa B. Goudar "suo motu" under Section
8 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. For the
aforesaid purpose, the Port Trust had deposited a sum
of Rs.3,26,140/- with the Workmen's Compensation
Commissioner on 4.11.2003. Thereupon, the
Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, having issued
noticed to the claimants (dependants of the deceased
Yalgurdappa B. Goudar), fixed 20.4.2004 as the date
of hearing. On the aforesaid date, the statement of the
widow of Yalgurdappa B. Goudar, namely, Dyamavva
Yalgurdappa was recorded, and thereafter, the
Workmen's Compensation Commissioner by an order
dated 29.4.2004 directed the release of a sum of
Rs.3,26,140/- to be shared by the widow of the
deceased and his daughter in definite proportions.
12. The issue to be determined by us is, whether the
acceptance of the aforesaid compensation would
amount to the claimants having exercised their option,
to seek compensation under the
Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The procedure
under Section 8 aforesaid (as noticed above) is
initiated at the behest of the employer "suo motu",
and as such, in our view cannot be considered as an
exercise of option by the dependants/claimants to seek
compensation under the provisions of the
Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The position
would have been otherwise, if the dependants had
raised a claim for compensation under Section 10 of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13338/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2024
undefined
the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. In the said
eventuality, certainly compensation would be paid to
the dependants at the instance (and option) of the
claimants. In other words, if the claimants had moved
an application under Section 10 of the
Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, they would have
been deemed to have exercised their option to seek
compensation under the provisions of the Workmen's
compensation Act. Suffice it to state that no such
application was ever filed by the respondents-
claimants herein under Section 10 aforesaid. In the
above view of the matter, it can be stated that the
respondents- claimants having never exercised their
option to seek compensation under Section 10 of the
Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, could not be
deemed to be precluded from seeking compensation
under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
13. Even though the aforesaid determination,
concludes the issue in hand, ambiguity if at all, can
also be resolved in the present case, on the basis of
the admitted factual position. The first act at the
behest of the respondents-claimants for seeking
compensation on account of the death of Yalgurdappa
B. Goudar, was by way of filing a claim petition
under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on
30.5.2003. The aforesaid claim petition was the first
claim for compensation raised at the hands of the
respondents-claimants. If the question raised by the
appellant has to be determined with reference
to Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the
same is liable to be determined on the basis of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13338/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2024
undefined
aforesaid claim application filed by the respondents-
claimants on 30.5.2003. The compensation deposited
by the Port Trust with the Workmen's Compensation
Commissioner for payment to the respondents-
claimants was much later, on 4.11.2003. The aforesaid
deposit, as already noticed above, was not at the
behest of the respondents-claimants, but was based on
a unilateral "suo motu" determination of the
employer (the Port Trust) under Section 8 of the
Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The first
participation of Dayamavva Yalgurdappa, in the
proceedings initiated by the Port Trust under the
Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, was on
20.4.2004. Having been summoned by the Workmen's
Commissioner, she got her statement recorded before
the Commissioner on 20.4.2004. But well before that
date, she (as well as the other claimants) had already
filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, on 30.5.2003. Filing of the
aforesaid claim application under Section 166
aforesaid, in our view constitutes her (as well as, that
of the other dependants of the deceased) option, to
seek compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988. The instant conclusion would yet again answer
the question raised by the appellant herein,
under Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in
the same manner, as has already been determined
above.
14. In the aforesaid view of the matter, we hereby
affirm the determination rendered by the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bagalkot, and the High
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13338/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2024
undefined
Court in awarding compensation quantified at
Rs.11,44,440/- to the claimant. The Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, Bagalkot, as also, the High Court,
ordered a deduction therefrom of a sum of
Rs.3,26,140/- (paid to the claimants under the
Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923). The said
deduction gives full effect to Section 167 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, inasmuch as, it awards
compensation to the respondents-claimants under the
enactment based on the option first exercised, and
also ensures that, the respondents-claimants are not
allowed dual benefit under the two enactments.
15. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no
merit in the instant appeal. The judgment rendered by
the High Court is affirmed. The instant appeal is
accordingly dismissed."
8. Considering the facts and considering the decision of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd. vs. Dyamavva and Ors. read with Section 167 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, this Court is of the opinion that, the
claimants (respondents) are entitled to compensation either
under M.V.Act or under Workman's Compensation Act, but not
under both. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for deduction
of the amount which has been paid under the provisions of
Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, the rejection of the application
of the petitioner filed below Exh.12 is erroneous.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13338/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2024
undefined
9. In view of the above, the order dated 01.06.2023 of
Labour Court, Gandhidham below Exh.12 is quashed and set
aside. The application of the petitioner- Insurance Company
below exibit-12, is ordered to be decided a fresh. The petition
is partly allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid
extent. No costs.
(MAUNA M. BHATT,J)
NAIR SMITA V.
