CASE STUDY ON THE WORKMENS COMPENSATION ACT, 1923

This was an appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act by the employer against the judgment and order of the Second Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Sambalpur, awarding Rs. 55,650/- as compensation to the claimant-respondent for the permanent disability suffered by him in an accident, and the question that arises is as to whether the Tribunal could award a higher compensation than that awardable under the Workmen's Compensation Act.

The Facts for the Case: The respondent was a bus driver of the appellantCorporation. According to the case of the respondent, on 6-11-1979 he was to take a bus of the appellant Corporation from Deogarh to Bamra. When he was asked to take the bus in question, he noticed some defects in the headlight, break system, etc. But be was directed to take that very bus. Unfortunately, the bus met with an accident near a bridge, where there was a stiff curve of 90 degrees as it went beyond the control due to the defective brake. Taking into account also the uncertainties of life and payment of the amount in a lump sum, he fixed the compensation at Rs. 55,500/-. He then allowed Rs. 150/- as cost of treatment, etc. Accordingly, the Corporation has filed this appeal and the respondent a cross-objection.

Before the learned single Judge, it was submitted on behalf of the appellant that since the respondent was a 'workman' and the accident had occurred in course of his employment, the amount of compensation could not be more than what was payable to him under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, which, on the facts of the present case, would be much less than the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act. It was further submitted that in view of the special statute governing the case of the respondent, he could not have preferred a claim under the general law, namely, the Motor Vehicles Act. The learned Judge,

finding some 'conflict' between the decisions of this Court itself and in view of the authorities of some other High Courts, referred the matter to a Division Bench for an authoritative decision.

Relevant provisions of the law : Section 110-AA of the Motor Vehicles Act was inserted by the Act 56 of 1969 and came into force with effect from 2-3-1970. In view of the controversy, it would be better to quote the provision of this section: Section 110-AA. Option regarding claims for compensation in certain cases-Notwithstanding anything contained in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 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 VII-A, claim such compensation under either of those Acts but not under both.

It would be relevant to notice that before the creation of the forum under the Motor Vehicles Act in the year 1956, a claimant was entitled to file a suit for damages under the general law in the civil court. Even at that time it was open to the claimant to pursue his remedy either under the general law or under the Workmen's Compensation Act Thus, the claimant could seek his relief only in one forum. Later on, the jurisdiction of the civil courts was ousted by insertion of Section 110-F of the Motor Vehicles Act with respect to claims arising out of an accident by a motor vehicle with effect from 16 2-1957. When the Parliament, in its wisdom, inserted Section 110-AA, it definitely intended that a person who is entitled to compensation under both the Acts has to choose either of the forums. Obviously, therefore, a claimant cannot claim compensation under both the Acts and it is for him to choose either of the forums. It will also be useful to refer to the objects and reasons for inserting Section 110-AA, which reads as follows:

At present it is open to workmen to file a claim before a Commissioner for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, even though he had preferred a claim earlier under the Motor Vehicles Act to a Motor Accidents claims Tribunal and that claim had been adjudicated upon by that Tribunal.

Name: Raghav Choudhary Class: TY-E Roll No: 3291