Apex Court on dual benefit ~
can one claim under MACT after receiving payment in WC ?
Everywhere you go ~ the roads are overcrowded, bustling with traffic
all the time. Decades ago,
there existed specified path for pedestrians to walk, then there were cycle
path – all have vanished as automobiles jostle their way. Road accidents do occur
frequently. There is a legislation aimed at regulating the usage of automobiles
in public place known as ‘Motor Vehicles Act 1988’ which is an improvised version of the earlier 1939
act.
Sec
147 spells out the requirements of Policies and limits of liability. It states that in order to comply with the
requirements of this Chapter, Policy of Insurance must be issued by an
authorized Insurer and insure the person or classes of persons specified
against liabilities in respect of death of or bodily injury to person or damage
to property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of vehicle in
a public place. It also requires to
cover liability arising under WC Act 1923 in respect of employee engaged in
driving the vehicle etc.,
Sec 165 of MC Act is about constitution
of Claims Tribunals known as Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals [MACT] for the purpose of adjudicating upon
claims for compensation in respect of accidents
involving the death of, or bodily injury to, persons
arising out of the use of motor vehicles, or damages to any
property of a third party so arising, or both.
Sec 167 speaks of the
option regarding claim for compensation – which states that in respect of an
accident giving rise to a claim for compensation under MC Act as also WC 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. [Sections partially reproduced and hence could give a
different meaning too ~ which is not intended]. Generally, in all MACT petitions,
the defendants would seek an affidavit that no other claim is filed by the claimant or any other legal heir
before any other
MACT/WC Court
for the same cause of action.
One of the cases frequently referred is the
decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court on 4th Mar 1992 in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Veronica Obrin (Smt.) And Ors. It was an
appeal made by the Insurer against the WC Commissioner made under WC Act to pay
the dependents of deceased Machale Obrin, a driver of a motor
vehicle. The dependents of the deceased
had opted to claim under WC and such opting, it was claimed that, disentitled them to make a claim for compensation in the forum
provided for under the MV Act. Relief in
MACt could be got not only against the
employer or his insurer, but also against the tort-feasor, whereas in WC the
claim is against the employer. However, filing of a claim by the owner of the
motor vehicle or his insurer who has to bear the liability for compensation,
does not prevent either of them from proceeding against the owner or Insurer of
driver of the other motor vehicle responsible for the accident, before the
Claims Tribunal under the MV Act for obtaining reimbursement of the liability
suffered by any of them.
Now in a recent Judgment, the
Supreme Court has provided a varied and clearer interpretation of this. The reference is to Civil Appeal No. 937 of
2013 – where Oriental Insurance was the Appellant and Dyamavva & Ors were
the respondents.
The facts of the case was : Yalgurdappa
B. Goudar was
employed as a
Pump Operator of the Mormugao Port Trust. While discharging his duties in his aforesaid
capacity he was hit and fatally injured by a tipper when he was on pillion of a
motor cycle. The tipper was insured with
the Oriental Insurance Company. The
dependants of the deceased filed a claim
petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation.
The Port Trust intimated the death to the WC Commissioner
Goa and deposited an amount of Rs.3,26,140/- with the Workmen’s
Compensation Commissioner, as compensation payable to the
dependants of the
deceased. The widow of the the deceased
Yalgurdappa B. Goudar,
appeared before the
Workmen’s
Compensation
Commissioner and her
statement was recorded
by the Commissioner. In her statement she acknowledged the demise
of her
husband in a motor accident, while working in the employment of the
Port Trust. Since the claim raised by
Dyamavva Yalgurdappa, widow
of Yalgurdappa B. Goudar was not contested by
the employer, the
amount of Rs.3,26,140/- deposited by the Port Trust
with the Workmen’s Compensation
Commissioner, was ordered to be mainly released to the
Dyamavva Yalgurdappa, widow
of Yalgurdappa B. Goudar,
and partly to
the daughter of
the deceased Yalgurdappa B.
Goudar.
Besides the compensation determined under the Workmen’s
Compensation Act, 1923, the claim raised by Dyamavva Yalgurdappa under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was
independently determined by
the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Bagalkot. Vide an award
dated 15.7.2008, the said Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
awarded the claimants compensation
of Rs.11,44,440/-. Out of the
aforesaid compensation, the
Motor Accident Tribunal ordered a
deduction of Rs.3,26,140/-, (i.e., the amount
which had been disbursed to the
claimants by the Workmen’s Compensation
Commissioner) The order of MACT Bagalkot was
challenged by the Insurer before the High Court of Karnataka Circuit
Bench at Dharwad. The High Court affirmed the award and hence
Oriental preferred appeal before the Supreme Court of India.
Their challenge was based on Sec 167 of MC Act that claim for compensation can be under
either of the Acts but not under both.
They contended that since the WC had already awarded compensation and received
by the dependents, they were precluded from raising a claim before the
MACT. They relied on a earlier decision
in National Insurance Company Ltd.
V. Mastan &
Anr., (2006) 2
SCC 641.
In order to succeed before this Court, it was necessary
for the appellant to establish, that the respondents-claimants had exercised
their option to seek compensation under WC Act and therefore, were
precluded from seeking compensation yet
again under the MC Act.
For, it is only when such
an option has been exercised, that the provisions of Section 167 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
would disentitle the
claimant(s) from seeking compensation under the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988.
In this case, the Court having perused the provisions of WC Act determined that the Port
Trust had initiated
proceedings for paying
compensation to the dependants of the deceased “suo motu” under Section 8 of
the Workmen’s Compensation Act,
1923 and had deposited a sum of
Rs.3,26,140/-; the dependent was called by WC Commissioner and hence the
issue was whether the
acceptance of the compensation would amount to the
claimants having exercised their option,
to seek compensation under the
Workmen’s Compensation Act,
1923.
The Apex Court affired the determination rendered by the MACT,
Bagalkot, and the Karnataka High Court in awarding compensation
quantified at Rs.11,44,440/- to the
claimant. The Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Bagalkot, as also, the High Court, ordered a deduction therefrom
of a sum of Rs.3,26,140/-
(paid to the claimants under the
Workmen’s Compensation Act,
1923). The said deduction gives full effect to Section
167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, inasmuch
as, it awards compensation to the respondents-claimants under
the enactment based on the option first exercised, and also ensures
that, the respondents-claimants are
not allowed dual
benefit under the
two enactments.
For these reasons, the
Apex Court
dismissed the appeal of the
Insurer and affirmed the judgment rendered by the High Court. As the idiom goes, there is no royal road to
learning and there is learning in every experience
With regards –
S. Sampathkumar
.
31st Mar 2013.