Sushila Devi @ Sushla Devi vs M/S Reliance General Insurance ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 1566 Jhar

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                  M.A. No. 629 of 2018
                                             ----

1. Sushila Devi @ Sushla Devi

2. Natthan Singh @ Nattan Prasad Singh..... Appellant(s) Versus

1. M/s Reliance General Insurance Company Limited

2. Khurshid Anwar Khan.... Respondent(s)

-----

         CORAM       :      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.
                                             -----
         For the appellant(s):         Mr. Saibal Kumar Laik, Advocate.
         For the Insurance Co.:        Mr. Amit Kr. Das, Advocate.
                                             ---
06/19.04.2022:       Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The claimants are aggrieved by the judgment dated 20.7.2018 passed by the learned District Judge -I-cum-MACT, Bokaro in Title Motor Vehicle Case No. 71/2014, by which, the claim application has been dismissed.

3. A very short point is involved in this case. The question, which falls for consideration before this Court is that as to whether Motor Vehicle Claim Application filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act is maintainable or not, in view of the fact that the claimants have received a sum of Rs.5,48,661/- under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 in Misc. E.C. Case No. 04/2014.

4. The issue is now settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Dyamavva and Others reported in (2013) 9 SCC 406. Paragraphs 16 and 17 of the judgment read as under:-

"16. 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.

17. 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 dependents/claimants to seek compensation under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The position would have been otherwise if the dependents had raised a claim for compensation under Section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1923. In the said eventuality, certainly compensation would be paid to the dependents 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 respondent claimants herein under Section 10 aforesaid. In the above view of the matter, it can be stated that the respondent 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."

5. In the instant case, the order dated 6.8.2014 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court-cum-Employee's Compensation Commissioner, Bokaro, in Misc. E.C. 04/2014 has been brought on record. Paragraph- 1 of the said order suggests that late Pravin Kumar died on 21.6.2014 and thereafter, his employer deposited a cheque of Rs.5,48,661.00 on 15.7.2014. The said amount was determined and assessed by the employer which was deposited before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court-cum-Employee's Compensation Commissioner, Bokaro. Thereafter, the Court issued notice to the father of the deceased to receive the compensation amount.

6. The father of the deceased thus appeared and received the compensation amount. Thus, it is apparent that the employer, suo motu, deposited the amount before the Labour Court-cum-Employee's Compensation Commissioner, Bokaro and admittedly, no claim was raised under Section 10 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 by the claimants.

7. Since no claim has been raised by the claimants rather the amount was deposited by the employer suo motu, which the claimants received after notice was issued by the Commissioner, pursuant to the direction, it cannot be said that the claimants has exercised their option and invoked the provision of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923.

8. Thus, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited (supra), I find that the claim application, filed under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, by the claimants is maintainable and the Tribunal has wrongly decided the issue.

9. In that view, the judgment dated 20.7.2018 passed by the learned District Judge -I-cum- MACT, Bokaro in Title Motor Vehicle Case No. 71/2014 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal, Bokaro to decide the Claim Application, filed under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, on merits as well as taking into consideration the evidences, led by the parties and arrive at conclusion as to what amount the claimants are entitled to receive. If the claimants are entitle to receive an amount, which is more than the amount, which has been assessed by the employer and withdrawn by the claimant in Misc. E.C. 04/2014 before the Employee's Compensation Commissioner, Bokaro, the balance amount should be directed to be paid to the claimants.

10. The Tribunal will try to dispose of the claim application, preferably within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

11. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed.

Anu/-C.P.2. (ANANDA SEN, J.)