LexORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. versus DYAMAWA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 1 S.C.R. 739 ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. DYAMAWA & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 937 of 2013) FEBRUARY 5, 2013 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.] Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: s. 167 read with s.166 of the Act and s.8 of 1923 Act - Death of an employee in a motor accident while in employment of the employer - Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarding compensation and directing deduction of A B c the amount already paid to claimant under 1923 Act - Held: D Dependents having opted to file claim petition uls 166 of the Act first, and being disbursed the amount under 1923 Act subsequently, the order of Tribunal directing deduction of the amount paid under the 1923 Act from the compensation determined under Motor Vehicles Act, gives full effect to s. 167 of the said Act, and the claimants are, thus, not allowed E dual benefit under the two enactments - Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - ss. 8 and 10. The husband of respondent no. 1 lost his life In a motor accident while working in the employment of the F Port Trust. The dependents filed a claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Subsequently, the employer-Port Trust Intimated the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner of the motor accident and deposited an amount of Rs. 3,26,140/·, which was paid to G the dependants. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal · Independently determined the claim and awarded the claimants a compensation of Rs.11,44,440/-, out of which the amount of Rs. 3,26,140/· disbursed under Workmen's 739 H 740 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 1 S.C.R. A Compensation Act, 1923 was directed to be deducted. The High Court affirmed the order. In the instant appeal filed by the Insurance Company, it was contended for the appellant that the claimants having received the compensation under the Workmen's 8 Compensation Act, were, in view of s. 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, precluded from raising a claim linder the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. c Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. Sub-s. (1) to (3) of s. 8 of the Workmen's Compensation, 1923 (the 1923 Act) envisages that when a workman during the course of his employment suffers injuries resulting in his death, the employer has to deposit 0 the compensation payable, with the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner. Where an employer has not suo-motu initiated action u/ss 8 for payment of compensation to an employee or his/her dependants, it is open to the dependants of the deceased employee to raise a claim for compensation u/s 10 of the Workmen's E Compensation Act, 1923. The procedure u/s 8 is initiated at the behest of the employer "suo motu", and as such, cannot be considered as an exercise of option by the dependants/claimants to seek compensation under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. If F the claimants had moved an application u/s 10 of the 1923 Act, they would have been deemed to have exercised their option to seek compensation under the provisions of the said Act. In the instant case, no such application was ever filed by the respondents-claimants u/s 10. G Therefore, the respondents-claimants having never exercised their option to seek compensation u/s 10 of the 1923 Act could not be deemed to be precluded from seeking compensation u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. (para 9 and 12] [754-D-E; 756-A-D] H ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. DYAMAWA & 741 ORS. National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Mastan & Anr. 2005 A (5) Suppl. SCR 704 = (2006) 2 sec 641 - relied on. 1.2. Even otherwise, the first act at the behest of the respondents-claimants for seeking compensation on account of the death of the bread winner was by way of 8 filing a claim petition uls 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on 30.5.2003. The said claim petition was the first claim for compensation raised at the hands of the respondents-claimants. If the question raised by the appellant has to be determined with reference to s. 167 C of the Motor Vehicles Act, the same is liable to be determined on the basis of the said claim application filed by the respondents-claimants on 30.5.2003. The compensation deposited by the Port Trust under the 1923 Act was much later, on 4.11.2003. The said deposit was not at the behest of the respondents-claimants, but D was based on a unilateral "suo motu" determination of the employer (the Port Trust) u/s 8 of the 1923 Act. Filing of the claim application u/s 166 afo
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.