AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.V.Anjaria, J
Heard learned advocate Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Hiren Modi, who appeared for respondent No.4.
The present petition was directed against judgment and award dated 30.3.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Kachchh at Bhuj below Exhibit 15/B in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 361 of 2015.
The petitioner happens to be an insurance company-the original opponent No.4. The proceedings before the Tribunal were filed by one Mohamadanish Mohmadkamrudin Pathan putting forth a case that he was a driver of truck bearing Registration No. GJ-12-AU-7989 and that his truck met with an accident with another truck bearing registration No. GJ-1-TT-4370 on 18.2.2015. As a result of the accident, the said Mohamadanish suffered injuries, who approached the Tribunal with Application No. 361 of 2015. It appears that parallelly the said driver Mohamadanish Mohmadkamrudin Pathan had also filed application being Workman Compensation (Non-Fatal) Application No. 26 of 2015 under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 for compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,25,136/-.
As the two proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal as well as before the Workmen Compensation Commissioner were filed, application Exhibit 15 came to be filed by the petitioner insurance company before the Tribunal concerned stating and urging that the claimant had filed two proceedings in respect of the same incident therefore the proceedings under the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal were not maintainable and were required to be closed.
4.1 The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Kuchchh at Bhuj by order dated 30.3.2016 dismissed the said application with the reasoning that bar under section 167 of the Motor Vehicle's Act would operate only when the remedy under the Motor Vehicle Act as well as under the Workman Compensation Act is availed and filed against the same entity. It was reasoned that it would not operate when the respondents are different in both the proceedings.
When the present petition came up for consideration today, learned advocate for the petitioner stated that the respondent No.4 herein had already withdrawn the application under the Workmen Compensation Act and order by the Commissioner was passed permitting such withdrawal on 25.3.2019. Learned advocate for the respondent No.4 could not dispute the said position. Copy of the order dated 25.3.3019 of the Commissioner of Workmen Compensation permitting withdrawal of the application of respondent No.4, is taken on record.
As one of the two parallel proceedings, namely under the Workmen Compensation Act, has been withdrawn by the claimant-the respondent No.4 herein, the proceedings under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 would continue.
While it is not necessary to go into or express anything about merits of the impugned order, in view of above this petition does not have survival value so as to stand. Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of with a direction that Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main) Kuchchh at Bhuj, shall proceed with the Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 361 of 2015 so as to dispose of the same in accordance with law.