Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 893 (ALL)

MANJU JHA v. HAR GOVIND SINGH

2018-04-12

PANKAJ MITHAL, RAJIV JOSHI

body2018
JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Sri V.K. Shukla, learned counsel for the claimant-appellants and Sri Nagendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the New India Insurance Company respondent Nos. 3 and 4. 2. The claimant-appellants have preferred this appeal against the order dated 6.6.2012 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kanpur Nagar, whereby the claim of the claimant-appellants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been rejected as barred by Section 53 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the ESI Act). 3. The deceased was an employee of one Ram Chandra Jha. He was returning from office in the car of the employer which met with an accident. He died due to the injuries received in the said accident. On account of his death, the claim petition was preferred under Section 166 of the Act which has been dismissed as barred by Section 53 of the ESI Act. 4. Section 53 of the ESI Act reads as under: “53. Bar against receiving or recovery of compensation or damages under any other law.—An insured person or his dependents shall not be entitled to receive or recover, whether from the employer of the insured person or from any other person, any compensation or damages under the Workmen?s Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923), or any other law for the time being in force or otherwise, in respect of an employment injury sustained by the insured person as an employee under this Act.” 5. It provides that insured person or his dependents would not be entitled any compensation in respect of the employment injury sustained by the insured person as an employee under the Act. The aforesaid provision prohibits payment of compensation or damages to the insured or his dependents under any other law except under the ESI Act. 6. The insured person is defined under Section 2(14) of the ESI Act to mean a person who is or was an employee in respect of whom contributions are or were payable under the ESI Act and who is by reason thereof, entitle to any benefit under the Act. 7. Thus, for the purposes of any benefit under the ESI Act it has to be proved that in respect of person contributions were being made under the ESI Act. 7. Thus, for the purposes of any benefit under the ESI Act it has to be proved that in respect of person contributions were being made under the ESI Act. It is only the insured person or his dependents that have been prohibited from claiming compensation or damages under any other law except the ESI Act in view of Section 53 of the ESI Act. 8. The Tribunal by the impugned order has only recorded a finding that the employer had paid Rs. 1,50,000/- to the family of the deceased and therefore, they are not entitle to any other compensation under the Act in view of the bar placed by Section 53 of the ESI Act. 9. The Tribunal in passing the above order fell short of recording any finding as to whether the deceased was an employee in respect of whom contributions were being made under the ESI Act. In the absence of such a finding the deceased cannot be held to be “insured person” within the meaning of Section 2(14) of the ESI Act so as to apply of Section 53 of the ESI Act to hold that the claim petition is bared. 10. A plain and simple reading of Section 53 of the ESI Act would further show that the claim under any other ESI Act is barred in respect of an “employment injury” sustained by the insured person as an employee and not in respect of a fatal accident leading to death. The claims on account of the death of an insured person as an employee are not specifically barred by Section 53 of the ESI Act rather only the claims in respect of an employment injury under other Acts are prohibited. 11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the Tribunal committed error in holding that the claim petition was barred. 12. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 6.6.2012 is set aside and the matter is remanded for reconsideration in accordance with the observations made herein above. 13. The Appeal is allowed.