Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1234 (PNJ)

National Insurance v. Hari Singh And Others

2009-07-24

SHAM SUNDER

body2009
Judgment Sham Sunder, J. 1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 29.3.1996, rendered by the Commissioner under the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923, vide which the application moved by the revision petitioner herein for dismissing the petition, at the preliminary stage, was declined. 2. Ram Saran, aged about 23 years, working as driver on the tractor No. HYF 3558, died on 24.7.1993 while driving the same, when he met with an accident, during the course of his employment near the Wine Factory, Hisar. Vehicle was insured with the insurance company and, thus, an amount of Rs. 1,50,000 was claimed as compensation by filing a petition by claimants before the Workmens Compensation Commissioner. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (revision petitioner) moved an application before Workmens Compensation Commissioner, praying for dismissal of the petition, as the claimants had already filed a petition, bearing No. 54-M.A.C.T. of 1993, under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, titled as Hari Singh v. Man Singh before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hisar, claiming compensation on account of the death of Ram Saran and the Claims Tribunal had awarded Rs. 86,400 as compensation on 31.8.1995. The application was dismissed by the Workmens Compensation Commissioner holding that the claimants could resort to both the remedies, under the Motor Vehicles Act as also under the Workmens Compensation Act. 3. Feeling aggrieved against the order impugned vide which the application filed by National Insurance Co. Ltd. was dismissed, the instant revision petition was filed by the revision petitioner. 4. I have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on record carefully. 5. Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the claimants could file the petition for compensation either before the Workmens Compensation Commissioner or before Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. He further submitted that since already the compensation has been awarded to the claimants on account of the death of Ram Saran in a motor vehicle accident due to rash or negligent driving of the offending vehicle by Bhagwan Singh, the petition filed under the Workmens Compensation Act, relating to the same accident was not maintainable. He relied on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mastan, 2006 ACJ 528 (SC), Trading Engineering v. Nirmala Devi, 1980 ACJ 230 (P&H) and Dropti Devi v. Modern Auto Enterprises, (1987-1)91 PLR 28, in support of his contention. 6. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent Nos. He relied on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mastan, 2006 ACJ 528 (SC), Trading Engineering v. Nirmala Devi, 1980 ACJ 230 (P&H) and Dropti Devi v. Modern Auto Enterprises, (1987-1)91 PLR 28, in support of his contention. 6. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 could not dispute the legal proposition that the claimants could either file a petition claiming compensation on account of the death of Ram Saran, deceased, before Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal or before the Workmens Compensation Commissioner but not before both the authorities in respect of the same accident. 7. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the contentions advanced by the counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, petition deserves to be accepted for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. The claimants could only claim compensation either under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or under the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923, in respect of the same accident, but not under both. It is evident from the record that the petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal was filed on 10.2.93 and the said Tribunal awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 86,400 on 31.8.1995. Claimants filed another petition for compensation before the Workmens Compensation Commissioner. Once the claimants had opted for the remedy before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and had been awarded compensation for the accident in which Ram Saran died under the relevant provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, they could not file a petition for compensation before the Workmens Compensation Commissioner relating to the same accident. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. s case, 2006 ACJ 528 (SC), compensation had been granted under the Workmens Compensation Act. In these circumstances, it was held by the Supreme Court that the claim could not be maintained under both the Acts. Similar principle of law was laid down in Trading Engineering, 1980 ACJ 230 (P&H) and Dropti Devi, (1987-1) 91 PLR 28, relied upon by the counsel for the revision petitioner. Since the petition under the Workmens Compensation Act was not maintainable, the Workmens Compensation Commissioner was required to dismiss the same at the preliminary stage. 8. The order impugned, passed by the Workmens Compensation Commissioner, thus, suffers from illegality and perversity warranting interference of this court, in its revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the order impugned, is liable to be set aside. 9. 8. The order impugned, passed by the Workmens Compensation Commissioner, thus, suffers from illegality and perversity warranting interference of this court, in its revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the order impugned, is liable to be set aside. 9. For the reasons recorded above, the revision petition is accepted. The order impugned is set aside. Petition allowed.