Can a Victim claim Compensation both under MACT and Workmen Compensation Act? HC replies, Read Judgment

The Madras High Court has held that victims cannot claim compensation under two statutes for the same accident.

The single-judge bench of Justice Rmt. Teeka Raman was adjudicating upon two appeals, one filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 for enhancement of compensation and other under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the dismissal of MCOP by the Additional District Judge.

The Court on first appeal decided that it is settled law that claimants' claim under Workmen Compensation Act are not entitled for any compensation under the conventional heads except funeral expenses of ₹5000/-

The Court mentioned The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Siby George & Ors., 2012 Latest Caselaw 397 SC wherein it was held that the claimants are entitled to 12% only from the date of accident.

In the second appeal, the Counsel for the Insurance Company could contend that the claim petitioners cannot file a claim petition under Motor Vehicles Act and another claim petition under Workmen's Compensation Act.

The Court reminisced one of its decision wherein it was held that the claimants can claim only from his employer under Workmen's Compensation Act but he is not debarred from claiming compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act against the tortfeasor.

In the accident case, the claimants/petitioners have filed MCOP under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act against the owner of the lorry, who is not his employer and insurer of the lorry, which hit the deceased, seeking compensation, the Court noted.

The Court took note of the decision in Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Astalingam and others wherein the Court has held that the claim petition under both the provisions of the Act are maintainable.

The Court clarified that Supreme Court has set aside the above order in SLP. The Court added that the decisions in New India Assurance Co., Ltd., vs. Bidami, Nasimbanu v. Ramjibhai Bahubhai Ahir and Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Astalingam and others are no longer good law.

Ordering both the points raised by the Insuance Company, the Court held that claim petition simultaneously or one after another cannot be maintained.

Case Details: C.M.A(MD)Nos.1448 of 2016 and 166 of 2017

Coram: Justice Rmt. Teeka Raman

Read Order Here:

Picture Source :