Employees Can Seek Compensation Under Both Section 140 Of The Motor Vehicle Act And Section 3 Of The Workmen's Compensation Act, According To The Bombay High Court

CASE TITLE:
Narayan Vs Mrs Sangita & Anr

DATE OF ORDER:
06TH JUNE, 2022

JUDGE(S):
HON’BLE JUSTICE S.G. MEHARE

PARTIES:
PETITIONER: NARAYAN
RESPONDENT: MRS. SANGITA AND ANR

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS

Workmen's Compensation Act 1923 (now Employees Compensation Act 1923) ("W.C. Act"); Motor Vehicles Act 1988 ("M.V. Act")

SUBJECT

The Bombay High Court recently heard a case in which a truck driver, who was an employee of the truck's owner, was involved in a vehicular accident. The commissioner denied his claim for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1923 (now Employees Compensation Act 1923) ("W.C. Act") because he had initiated compensation proceedings under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 ("M.V. Act").

BRIEF FACTS

• The appellant was a driver for respondent no. 1's truck, which was insured by respondent no. 2.
• He was involved in a car accident in which his left leg was injured, resulting in a 35% physical disability.
• He was unable to work as before the accident. Both respondents were served with the notices. However, none of the respondents have compensated him.
• As a result, he made an application under Sections 3 and 22 of the W.C. Act.
• The Commissioner denied his claim because he had already filed a claim with the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Because he had received compensation under section 140 of the M.V. Act, the Commissioner determined that the claim was barred by section 167 of the M.V. Act.
• The appellant, who was dissatisfied, filed this appeal. Using the case of Maroti Shrawan Manghate vs. Anr. Rita Y. Sapra [2018 (1) All MR. 700], he claimed that the Commissioner misread and misinterpreted M.V. section 167. Act.
• An application under M.V. Section 140 Section 169 of M.V. does not apply to the Act. Act. A claim for compensation under either the W.C. M.V. or Act A Section 140 application is required to keep the Act in force.

ANALYSIS BY THE COURT

• The court noted that section 140 is part of Chapter X of the Motor Vehicle Act, which addresses liability without fault in certain circumstances. Section 140 addresses the obligation to pay compensation in certain circumstances, such as death and permanent disability, based on the no-fault principle.
• Compensation under this chapter is in addition to the right to compensation under the fault principle, with the exception of the right to compensation under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act. Section 144 specifies the overriding effect of this chapter's provisions.

CONCLUSION

• The court determined that if the employee receives compensation under Chapter X of the M.V. Act, his right to seek compensation under either the W.C. Act or the M.V. Act is not waived under section 167.
• Such an employee may file a compensation claim under either the W.C. Act or the M.V. Act. The court noted that the Commissioner misread and misinterpreted Section 167 of the M.V. Act and wrongfully dismissed the appellant's application.
• As a result, the appeal is granted, and the challenged order is quashed and set aside. Because all of the issues have not been resolved on merit, the case is remanded to the Commissioner of Employee's Compensation for a new determination of compensation within six months of the initial receipt of this order.

Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE

Click here to download the original copy of the judgement