Allowed

Smt Sada Kanwar and Ors. v. Hanuman Sahay and Ors.

Rajasthan HC25 Oct 2021CMA/450/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed appeal against Workmen's Compensation Commissioner order dismissing claim due to prior MACT rejection. Court held territorial jurisdiction defense invalid and limitation rules inapplicable to comp claims, remanding matter for fresh decision.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside and matter remanded to Commissioner WCC Sikar to revise claim in Claim Case No.WCC F/6/2007 to be decided within six months.

Smt Sada Kanwar and Ors. Vs Hanuman Sahay… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

(1 of 4)

¶2

[CMA-450/2010]

¶3

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶4

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.450/2010

¶5

Smt. Sada Kanwar W/o Surjan Singh, R/o Karanga, Distt. Sikar.

¶6

Surjan Singh S/o Bhagwan Singh (Since Deceased), R/o Karanga, Distt. Sikar.

¶7

----Appellants

¶8

Versus

¶9

Hanuman Sahay S/o Baluram Jat, R/o Jajekalan, Tehsil Shahpura, Distt. Jaipur.

¶10

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Its Regional Manager, Regional Office At Sahara Chambers, Tonk Road, Jaipur.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ripu Daman Singh Naruka For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ram Singh Bhati Mr. Sultan Singh Kuri

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

¶14

Order

¶15

25/10/2021

¶16

This is the civil misc. appeal filed against the order passed by the Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation Act, Sikar whereby the claim petition has been dismissed on the ground that the claimants had filed earlier claim petition before MACT, Alwar and claimants cannot file a claim petition at two different forums at a given point of time.

¶17

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants points out that the claim petition filed by the appellants before MACT, Alwar was erroneous as MACT, Alwar did not have territorial jurisdiction and he points out further that the claim filed by the appellants before

¶18

(2 of 4)

¶19

[CMA-450/2010]

¶20

the MACT, Alwar has been rejected vide order dated 23.03.2004 and this fact has been noticed by the learned Commissioner, MACT and in view thereof, he could not have rejected the claim of the appellants filed under the WCC on the ground of choosing two different forums. Learned counsel has relied on the judgment passed by the court in The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Versus Smt. Bidami & Ors. reported in WLC (Raj.) 2010 (1)

¶21

440 wherein it was so held.

¶22

Learned counsel further submits that the question of limitation could also have not arisen as there is no limitation provided for filing of the claim petition either before the concerned MACT or before the WCC in relation to an accident claim.

¶23

Learned counsel appearing for the insurance company does not propose to join issues in relation to the question of limitation or on the question of territorial jurisdiction as admittedly both territorial jurisdiction as well as limitation do not apply in relation to an accident claim case.

¶24

I have considered the submissions.

¶25

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides as

¶26

under:-

¶27

“ 166. Application for compensation. —(1) An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of section 165 may be made—

¶28

(a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or

¶29

(b) by the owner of the property; or

¶30

¶31

or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or

¶32

(d) by any agent duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be:

¶33

Provided that where all the legal representatives of the deceased have not joined in any such application for compensation, the application shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased and the legal representatives who have not so

¶34

(3 of 4)

¶35

[CMA-450/2010]

¶36

joined, shall be impleaded as respondents to the application.

¶37

[(2) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be made, at the option of the claimant, either to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred or to the Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the claimant resides or carries on business or within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides, and shall be in such form and contain such particulars as may be prescribed:

¶38

Provided that where no claim for compensation under section 140 is made in such application, the application shall contain a separate statement to that effect immediately before the signature of the applicant.]

¶39

[(4) The Claims Tribunal shall treat any report of accidents forwarded to it under sub-section (6) of section 158 as an application for compensation under this Act.]”

¶40

Admittedly, earlier claim petition filed before the MACT, Alwar has been dismissed on 23.03.2004. Although, this court finds that such an order on the ground of territorial jurisdiction could not have been passed as the claim can be filed at the place where the accident took place or at the place where the claimant ordinarily resides.

¶41

In view thereof while the order of MACT, Alwar cannot be said to be sustainable and at the same time it could not have been made a basis for rejecting the claim filed by the appellants before the Commissioner under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 as held in the case of The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra). The Rule of limitation is not applicable and an award under Workmen’s Compensation Act is not barred even if earlier award under Motor Vehicles Act has been rejected in relation to the same cause of action.

¶42

Keeping in view that the claimants cannot be ousted from both the forums in the manner in which the Commissioner Workmen Compensation, Sikar has passed the order dated 26.06.2008, I deem it appropriate to set aside the order and

¶43

(4 of 4) [CMA-450/2010]

¶44

remand the matter back to the Commissioner, WCC Sikar to revise the claim in Claim Case No.WCC F/6/2007 with directions to decide the same within a period of six months henceforth. 10. The civil misc. appeal is accordingly allowed.

¶45

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

¶46

Karan/51

Smt Sada Kanwar and Ors. v. Hanuman Sahay and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Sada Kanwar and Ors. v. Hanuman Sahay and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Naveen Kumar Khandal S/O Shiv Charan Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Maina Bai W/O Rambabu Vs Durgalal S/O Lodkya

Madho Singh Vs Smt Rahisa and Others

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt Gora Devi and Anr.

Asha Niketan Sr Sec School Chomu Vs Cholamandlam Investment and Finance Co.

Gourav Kumar S/O Shri Yogesh Kumar Vs Ghasilal S/O Kanaram