Dismissed

Vs

Bombay HC5 Apr 2005FA/1069/1995

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench dismissed an insurance company appeal against an order directing payment of accident compensation. The court held that since the deceased was a railway employee and no claim was initiated by the claimants under the Workmen's Compensation Act, they remained eligible to claim under the Motor Vehicles Act without double dipping.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.

What the court decided

AI extract

¶1

:1:

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1069 OF 1995

¶5

 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. ..Appellants

¶6

 versus

¶7

 Shri D. B. Yadav & Ors. ..Respondents

¶8

 Mr. Sunil S. Bhide for the Appellants.

¶9

 Mr. R. V. More for the Respondents No. 1 & 2.

¶10

 CORAM : D. G. DESHPANDE,J.

¶11

 DATE : 5TH APRIL,2005

¶12

ORAL ORDER :

¶13

Vs — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2005)

¶14

 2. Insurance Company has filed this appeal
 against the order of the MACT, Solapur, dated
 31.8.1994 directing Insurance Company and other
 respondents to pay jointly and severally the amount
 of Rs.1,70,040/-.

¶15

 3. The accident in this case took place on
 3.2.1991.The deceased was working as a Gateman at
 Modnimb Railway Station and his death was on account
 of dash use of the truck MH-13/B-407. The fact that
 the deceased died as a result of the accident, that

¶18

 referred above and that the vehicle was insured with
 the present appellants, are not disputed. The only
 question that is agitated before this court by the
 appellants is whether the cliamants are entitled to
 compensation from Insurance company when in fact
 they had received compensation under the Workmen’s
 Compensation Act. According to the counsel for the
 appellants claimants cannot claim double benefit of
 compensation under the two different statutory
 provisions. If claimants were compensated under the
 Workmen’s Compensation Act, then, firstly, they
 cannot get compensation under the Accidents Claims
 and secondly and alternatively the insurance company
 is entitled for deduction of Rs.84,760/- which was
 paid to the claimants under the Workmen’s
 Compensation Act.

¶27

 necessary is that workmen must have initiated a
 claim for compensation in respect of the injury
 before the Commissioner. In the instant case the
 Tribunal found that there was nothing on record to
 show that proceedings were initiated at the instance
 of the claimants under the Workmen’s Compensation
 Act. Counsel for the respondents pointed out that
 since the deceased was a railway employee, the
 Railways deposited the claim before the Workmens
 Compensation Act, which the claimants withdrew. He
 therefore contended that Judgment of Orissa High
 Court relied upon by the appellants, firstly, does
 not apply to the present case because in that case
 it is not clear whether the claimants had initiated
 the proceedings. He however urged that looking to
 the judgment of the Division Bench, referred to
 above, which makes a distinction between
 compensation received by the claimants automatically
 and compensation received by the claimants at their
 own instance by initiating proceedings by them, no
 interference is called for in the impugned order.

¶28

 5. Perusal of the judgment of the Tribunal
 shows that this aspect has been rightly considered
 and the court came to the conclusion that in the
 circumstances, it would not be said that proceeding
 before the respondents for compensation under the

¶30

 Workmen’s Compensation Act, were initiated at the
 instance of the claimants. Section 167 of the Motor
 Vehicles act 1988 is analogous to Section 110(A) of
 the 1939 Act, it gives an option to a person to
 claim compensation either under the Workmen’s
 Compensation Act or under Motor Vehicles Act but the
 phraseology used is "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". The Division Bench has
 considered the provisions of Section 3 sub section 5
 of the Workmens Compensation Act and with reference
 to Section 167 or 110AA of the Motor Vehicles Act
 and has given a clear finding in this regard.
 Therefore, in view of this Division Bench Judgment,
 the Judgment of Orissa High Court relied upon by the
 Counsel for the appellants cannot be of any help.
 Only one submission is made by the counsel for the
 appellants, the same cannot be accepted. Therefore
 no interference is called for. Appeal is dismissed.
 In the circumstances no order as to costs.

Vs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shahubai Rajaram Margale (Decd.)by Lrs.-Venand Rajaram Margale and Ors. Vs Shivaji Waman Godase and Ors.

Bank of India Vs Shri Shrikant Dnyandeo Patil and Ors.

Bank of India. Vs Arun Vishnu Chougule and Ors.

Bank of India Vs Tanaji Ashru Lokare and Ors.

Vs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shahubai Rajaram Margale (Decd.)by Lrs.-Venand Rajaram Margale and Ors. Vs Shivaji Waman Godase and Ors.

Bank of India Vs Shri Shrikant Dnyandeo Patil and Ors.

Bank of India. Vs Arun Vishnu Chougule and Ors.

Bank of India Vs Tanaji Ashru Lokare and Ors.

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Gulabso Aminso Mujawar (Deceased) Vs R.R. Tukaram Santaram Patil

Vijay Kashinath Bhosale Vs the State of Maharashtra