Allowed

T. Laxmi v. Ramsingh

Chhattisgarh HC11 Jun 2024MAC/689/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimants' motor accident compensation claim was dismissed by the Tribunal on the basis of an earlier Workmen's Compensation Act award. The High Court held that since the claimants never received the awarded amount under the 1923 Act, their option under Section 167 MV Act to claim under the 1988 Act subsisted, set aside the dismissal and remitted the claim for fresh decision.

What did the court decide?

Delay condoned; impugned order dated 26.7.2018 set aside; Claim Case No.743/2016 restored and remitted to Tribunal to decide on merits expeditiously.

T. Laxmi Vs Ramsingh — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

MAC No. 689 of 2020

¶4

T. Laxmi W/o Lt. T. Nagesh Rao, Aged About 40 Years

¶5

T. Santosh S/o Lt. T. Nagesh Rao, Aged About 23 Years

¶6

All the appellants are R/o D.M.C. Talabpara, Ward No. 18, Kumhari, P.S.- Kumhari, Tah. And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. Mob No. 9691609342

¶7

---- Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

Ramsingh S/o Ghashiram Sidar R/o Jawahar Nagar, Ward No. 24, Metguda, P.S.- Bodhghat, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Tanker No. CG-17/KJ-9048)

¶10

M/s Mithila Fuels Through- Proprietor Harishankar Jha S/o Late Ramakant Jha, Dalpatnagar, Ward No. 18, Hikamipara, Jagdalpur, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Tanker No. CG-17/KJ-9048)

¶11

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Through- Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. G.E. Road, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Tanker No. CG-17/KJ-9048)

¶12

Omesh Verma S/o Mantram Verma Through- Manager, Avani Engineering Works, Mahobabazar-Heerapur Road, Raipur, P.S.Kabirnagar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

---- Respondent

¶14

For Appellants	Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate
For Respondents 1 & 2	Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate
For Respondent No.3	Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Qamrul Aziz, Advocate
	None for respondent No.4 though served.

¶15

SB.: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board

¶16

12/6/2024

¶17

¶18

Heard on IA No.1/2020, an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

¶19

On due consideration and for the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed and the delay of 545 days in filing the appeal, is hereby condoned.

¶20

Also heard on MAC No.689 of 2020.

¶21

This appeal is filed against the order dated 26.7.2018 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, in Claim Case No.743/2016, whereby, the claim of the appellants/claimants for grant of compensation, has been dismissed .

¶22

Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that under Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short “the Act, 1988”), an option regarding claims for compensation in certain cases either under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (in short “the Act, 1923”) or under the Act, 1988, has has been given to the claimants. He would submit that the claimants have not received the amount of compensation which was awarded to them under the Act, 1923 to the tune of Rs.5,06,433/- and before the subject Forum, they have categorically given an option to prefer their claim under the Act, 1988. In view of the above submissions of the claimants, the amount, which was deposited to the tune of Rs.5,06,433/-, was ordered to be returned to the employer i.e. respondent No.4 - Omesh Verma, Avani Engineering Works by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Labour Court, Raipur vide order dated 22.10.2016 and thus, the claimants have not received any amount under the Act,

¶23

¶24

He further submits that the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, by the impugned order, has wrongly closed the right of the appellants/claimants by dismissing the application though the claimants were having a right to prefer a claim under the Act, 1988. Hence, he prays to allow the appeal and remit the matter to the concerned Claims Tribunal to decide the issue on merits.

¶25

Learned counsel for the respective respondents would not dispute the settled proposition that the claimants have an option under Section 167 of the Act, 1988 to prefer a claim either under the Act, 1923 or under the Act, 1988 and they would not be able to receive compensation under both the Acts. They would further submit that since the claimants have categorically stated that they have not received any sum under the Act, 1923, the matter ought to have been decided on merits under the Act, 1988.

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed with the appeal.

¶27

Section 167 of the Act, 1988 categorically stipulates and grants an option to prefer a claim either under the Act, 1923 or the Act, 1988. Since the claimants have not received any sum under the Act, 1923 , the claim of the appellants under the Act, 1988 is maintainable. For the sake of brevity, Section 167 of the Act, 1988 is reproduced hereunder :

¶28

Section 167. Option regarding claims for compensation in certain cases.

¶29

¶30

Notwithstanding anything contained in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 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 X claim such compensation under either of those Acts but not under both.

¶31

10.In view of the aforesaid provision, the impugned order is not sustainable and the same is liable to be and is hereby set-aside. The matter is remitted to the concerned Tribunal with a direction to restore Claim Case No.743/2016 to its original number and decide the same on merits in accordance with law in an expeditious manner.

¶32

11.The parties are directed to remain present before the concerned Tribunal on 8.7.2024.

¶33

12.It is made clear that before proceeding with the said case, the claimants shall file an affidavit before the concerned Tribunal to the effect that they have not received any sum under the Act, 1923.

¶34

13.With the aforesaid observations, the Appeal is disposed of.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari)

¶37

Judge

¶38

Shyna

T. Laxmi v. Ramsingh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T. Laxmi v. Ramsingh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santoshi Bai Gond Vs Samarin Bai Gond

Khemlal Sonkar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Tularam Dhimar Vs Lalit Dhimar

Raipur Municipal Corporation Vs Assistant Privident Fund Commissioner And Recovery Officer

Smt. Khushabu Mishra Vs Manish Mishra

Tirupati Structure India Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Apace Builders and Contractors Pvt. Ltd.