AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This revision petition is directed against order dated 15.02.2020 passed by Additional District Judge, Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar, whereby the application filed by petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has been rejected.
The respondents- plaintiffs filed a suit for compensation on account of death of their son while working under respondent No.1 at the premises of petitioner.
The application was filed by the petitioner inter-alia with the contention that the suit was barred under Section 19(2) of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 ('the Act') as the claimants dependents could have filed application for compensation before the Commissioner, Employees Compensation and prayed that the suit be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC.
The application was resisted by the respondents- plaintiffs. The trial court after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that in view of provisions of Section 3(5) of the Act, it cannot be said that the filing of suit was barred. The court noticed that the plaintiffs have not made reference regarding filing of the suit under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 and, therefore, directed the plaintiffs to make necessary amendments.
Learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to provisions of Section 19(2) of the Act submitted that as the claim made by the claimants pertain to death of their son, who was working with the defendant No.1, the claim was maintainable only under the Act and as such in view of provisions of Section 19(2) of the Act, the same was barred by law.
Further submissions have been made that the direction given by the trial court in the circumstances of the case was not justified, inasmuch as, the claimants had not indicated as to under which provision they were seeking to approach the Civil Court for seeking compensation and, therefore, the order impugned passed by the trial court deserves to be set aside.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record.
Section 19(2) of the Act inter-alia reads as under:-
"19. Reference to Commissioners -
(1) .........
(2) No Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question which is by or under this Act required to be settled, decided or dealt with by a Commissioner or to enforce any liability incurred under this Act."
Provisions of Section 3(5) of the Act needs to be noticed, which reads as under:-
"3. Employer's liability for compensation -
(1) ......
(2) ......
(3) ......
(4) ......
(5) Nothing herein contained shall be deemed to confer any
right to compensation on an employee in respect of any injury if he has instituted in a Civil Court a suit for damages in respect of the injury against the employer or any other person; and no suit for damages shall be maintainable by an employee in any Court of law in respect of any injury-
(a) if he has instituted a claim to compensation in respect of the injury before a Commissioner; or
(b) if an agreement has been come to between the employee and his employer providing for the payment of compensation in respect of the injury in accordance with the provisions of this Act."
A harmonious reading of both the provisions would reveal that provisions of Section 3(5), specifically envisage filing of suit for damages before the Civil Court and provides that, in case, such a suit has been filed, proceedings cannot be initiated before the Commissioner for the same purpose.
In view thereof, apparently the maintainability of the suit for compensation under the Fatal Accidents Act cannot be questioned on the strength of provisions of Section 19(2) of the Act. Similar view has been taken in Minerals and Chemicals v. Thevan: 1992 ACJ 230 (Ker.) and The Section Officer, HESCOM Ltd. v. Parawwa & Ors.: 2013 Lab IC 1426 (Kar.).
So far as the direction of the Court to the plaintiffs to make necessary amendments is concerned, irrespective of the said directions a look at the plaint and the fact that plaintiffs have sought compensation of Rs. 76,22,000/- and had paid a fixed court fees of Rs. 10/- only and no objection was either raised by the office of the trial court or by the petitioner, necessarily means that the suit was under the Fatal Accidents Act, wherein, under the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961, a fixed court fees of Rs. 10/- only was payable and, therefore, the objection raised by learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to directions given by the trial court also has no substance.
In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the revision petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed.