AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.P. Routray, J.
The matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
Heard Mr. B.N. Samantaray, learned counsel for the claimant – Appellants and Mr. P. Das, learned counsel for insurer – Respondent No.2.
Present appeal by the claimants is directed against impugned judgment dated 4th April, 2018 of learned 1st MACT, Kendrapara passed in MAC No.104 of 2011, wherein the tribunal has passed ‘nil award’ holding the claim application as not maintainable.
The admitted position reveals that the claimants have availed the benefit under the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1928 and received the compensation. They further pursued the present claim application under Section 166 of the MV Act. The tribunal has rejected the prayer of the claimants since they have already availed the benefits under the EC Act.
Mr. Samantary, learned counsel for the claimant – Appellants by relying on a decision of Division Bench of Gujarat High Court, rendered in the case of Nasimbanu and Others v. Ramjibhai Bachubhai Ahir and Others, 2005 (3) TAC 354 (Guj.) contends that present application under the MV Act is maintainable even after availing the benefits under the E.C. Act.
The proposition of law has already been settled in an earlier decision of this court rendered in the case of Tanulata Pradhan and Others v. Mahendra Prasad and Others, 2013 (Supp.II) OLR 682.
This court has observed in said case, by referring and dealing with the case of Gujarat High court in Nasimbanu case (supra), that, once death or bodily injury to any person gives rise to cause of action for claiming compensation for damages, then claimant will not be compensated twice for self-same cause.
In view of the proposition of law already settled, no merit is seen in the contention of the Appellant – claimants to entertain their application for compensation under Section 166 of the MV Act. As such the finding of the tribunal is confirmed.
In the result the appeal is dismissed.
………………………………….