Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2128 (HP)

Mansa Devi v. Regional Manager, HRTC

2016-09-30

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2016
JUDGMENT : MANSOOR AHMAD MIR, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the award, dated 30th June, 2011, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Kangra at Dharamshala, (for short, the Tribunal), whereby the claim petition filed by the claimant was dismissed, (for short, the impugned award). 2. During the course of hearing, Mr.Jagdish Thakur, learned counsel for the respondents, frankly conceded that the claimant was entitled to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, WC Act). His statement is taken on record. 3. A perusal of the impugned award shows that the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the claimant ought to have resorted to proceedings under the WC Act. Perhaps, the Tribunal has lost sight of the fact that Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (for short, MV Act) provides for option to the claimant to seek compensation either under WC Act or MV Act. It is apt to reproduce Section 167 of the MV Act, hereunder: ?167. Option regarding claims for compensation in certain cases.—Notwithstanding anything contained in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) where the death of, or bodily injury to, any person gives rise to a claim for compensation under this Act 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 but not under both.? 4. Thus, in terms of Section 167 of the MV Act, the claimants have option either to invoke the jurisdiction under the Workmen's Compensation Act or to file a petition under the Motor Vehicles. 5. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondents stated that the appeal may be disposed of by awarding compensation, as per the mandate of WC Act, in favour of the claimant, without interest. 6. Therefore, in the facts of the case, I deem it proper to award Rs.4.00 lacs in lump sum, as compensation, in favour of the claimant. Respondent-HRTC is directed to deposit the amount in the Registry of this Court within a period of eight weeks from today and on deposit, the amount be released in favour of the claimant forthwith through her bank account. Respondent-HRTC is directed to deposit the amount in the Registry of this Court within a period of eight weeks from today and on deposit, the amount be released in favour of the claimant forthwith through her bank account. It is made clear that in case respondent-HRTC fails to deposit the amount within a period of eight weeks from today, the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from today till deposit. 7. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.