NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. versus HAMIDA KHATOON AND ORS.

Citation: [2009] 8 S.C.R. 248 · Decided: 06-05-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2009] 8 S.C.R. 248 
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. 
.. 
v. 
HAMIDA KHATOON AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 3324 of 2009) 
MAY 6, 2009 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR 
GANGULY, JJ.] 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - s. 173 - Motor accident -
C Resulting in death - Claim for compensation - Award by 
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -
Appeal by insurer 
contending that application for claim being u/s 173, not 
maintainable in view of s.53 of Employees States Insurance 
Act, 1948 - Appeal dismissed by High Court - On appeal, 
D Held: Entitlement to the claim to be worked out by the Tribunal 
by taking note of s. 53 - Employees States Insurance Act, 
1948 - s. 53. 
Regional Director, ES/ Corporation and Anr. v. Francis , 
De Costa and Anr. 1993 Suppl.(4) SCC 100; A. Trehan v. 
E Associated Electrical Agenc-ies 1996(4) SCC 255 and 
Bharagath Engg. v. R. Rangamayaki 2003"(2)SCC 138, relied 
on. 
F 
Case Law Reference: 
1993 Suppl.(4) sec 100 Relied on 
1996(4) sec 255 
2003(2) sec 138 
Relied on 
Relied on 
Para 6 
Para 7 
Para 8 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
3324 of 2009. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 28.10.2002 of the High 
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in FAFO No. 2019 of 2002. 
H 
248 
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. v. HAMIDA 249 
-.: 
KHATOON AND ORS. 
Atul Nanda, R. Hakeem, Sanjay Bhardwaj and P.N. Puri 
A 
for the Appellants. 
K. Radhakrishnan, B. Sunita Rao, Sunita Sharma, S.N. 
Terdol and Sushma Suri for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the 
Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the c 
appeal filed by the present appellant (hereinafter referred to as 
the 'insurer'). 
3. Factual position which is almost undisputed is 
essentially as follows: 
D 
An appeal was filed questioning the correctness of the 
Award made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 
Saharanpur (hereinafter referred to as the 'MACT') wherein a 
sum of Rs.1,20,000/- was awarded as compensation. 
The claim petition was filed on the basis that op 1.5.1991 
E 
while Abdul Hamid (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') 
was traveling by Matador No. URF-9761 from Saharanpur to 
Sarsawa, a truck bearing registration No.PIJ-5166 belonging 
to Border Security Force (in short the 'BSF') dashed against 
F 
the said vehicle resulting in serious injuries on the body of the 
deceased. He succumbed to the injuries at the SOB Hospital 
Saharanpur. The appellant-insurer contested the claim petition 
inter alia taking the stand that the compensation as claimed 
'~ 
was high and exorbitant. The MACT held that the accident 
-; 
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 
G 
truck and awarded Rs.1,20,000/- as compensation. 
In appeal the stand of the appellant was that the application 
filed by the claimant- respondent under Section 173 of the 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the ·Act') was not 
H 
250 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 8 S.C.R. 
~ 
A maintainable in view of Section 53 of the Employees State 
Insurance Act, 1948 (in short the "ESI Act'). The High Court did 
not accept the stand primarily on the ground that no such plea 
was taken specifically in the written statement. It was also held 
that as regards applicability of Section 53 of the Act certain 
B factual aspects were to be considered. The appeal was 
accordingly dismissed. 
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that true 
scope and. ambit of Section 53 of the ESI Act has not been 
c 
kept in view. 
5. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand 
supported the judgment. 
6. It is to be noticed that in Regional Director, ES/ 
D Corporation & Anr. v. Francis De Costa and Anr. [1993 
.. 
Suppl.(4) sec 100] at para 44 it was observed as follows: 
44. The next contention that the Motor Vehicles Act 
provides the remedy for damages for an accident resulting 
E 
in death of an injured person and that, therefore, the 
remedy under the Act cannot be availed of lacks force or 
substance. The general law of tort or special law in Motor 
Vehicles Act or Workmen's Compensation Act may 
provide a remedy for damages. The coverage of insurance 
under the Act in an insured employment is in addition to 
F 
but not in substitution of the above remedies and cannot 
on that account be denied to the employee. In K. Bharathi 
Dev v. G.l.C.I [AIR 1988 AP 361] the contention that the 
deceased contracted life insuran
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.