Mani Ram and Others vs National Insurance Co. Ltd.

S.K. Gupta, Judge

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 31.03.2003 propounded by Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act,

Jammu in case titled Mani Ram and others v. National Insurance Company, whereby the petition of the appellant for seeking compensation in

respect of death of Raj Kumar has been dismissed on a preliminary issue, as not maintainable, in absence of the liberty from Motor Accidents

Claims Tribunal.

It appears that the petition came to be commenced by the petitioners for the grant of compensation in respect of death of Raj Kumar conductor.

On the filing of objections to the claim petition, the respondents also annexed a certified copy of order dated 28.5.2002 passed by District Judge,

MACT, Jammu, allowing the withdrawal of the petition of their own by the petitioners without seeking any liberty to approach the Commissioner

under Workmen's Compensation Act for filing a claim petition. The Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act relied on the judgment

reported in AIR 1995 Allahabad 255 held the petition not maintainable after withdrawal of the first petition without liberty to file fresh for the same

relief from the MACT. It is this order passed by Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act, Jammu which became the subject matter of

challenge in this appeal.

I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parries and also perused the record meticulously.

Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 provides an option regarding claim(s) of compensation in certain cases. Where death or bodily

injury to a person gives rise to the claim for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act and also under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.

The person entitled to compensation may without prejudice to the provisions of M.V. Act claim such compensation under either of those Acts. The

bar provided is that compensation cannot be claimed under both the Acts. The relevant object of both the Acts is to provide compensation to the

victims of accident. The only difference between the two enactments in that so far as the Workmen's Compensation Act is concerned, it is confined

to Workmen's as de fined under that Act, while the relief provided under Chapters X to XII of the Motor Vehicles Act is available to all the

victims of accident involving a motor vehicle. This is the intendment of Section 167 of the M.V. Act under which it is open to claimants either to

proceed to claim compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act or under the Motor Vehicles Act. A perusal of the objects of the two

enactments clearly establishes that both the enactments are beneficial enactments operating in the same field, hence judicially accepted.

The said principles can be discerned from the words, implied in Section 167 of M.V. Act itself, ""death or bodily injury to any person gives rise

to claim under this Act and also the Workmen's Compensation Act."" Under both the statutes he is obliged to select only one of them. There would

be no bar in making a claim under the one Act even if he had made an unsuccessful move under the one Act earlier. It therefore, follows that the

withdrawal claim petition under one statute without seeking leave to file a fresh one creates no bar for grant of claim under the other statutes.

It appears that the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act seems to have relied upon the judgment reported in Syed Nizam

and others Vs. First Additional Civil Judge, Faizabad District and others, and dismissed the petition. This judgment pertains to the writ petition, and

there is no dispute with regard to the principles laid down in the judgment, but it has no application to the case in hand in view of the express

provisions of Section 167 of M.V. Act.

In the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, I allow the appeal and set aside the order dated 31.3.2003 passed by

Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act and remand the case to it with direction to hear the parties and afford opportunity to lead

evidence to the parties and dispose of the claim petition in accordance with law. Parties to cause their appearance before the Commissioner under

Workmen's Compensation Act, Jammu on 08.03.2004. The record shall be remitted back forthwith.

Disposed of accordingly.