AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Ramakrishna, Ag. C.J.
The insurer-appellant is calling in question in this Appeal the order made by the Member of the MACT, Bijapur, in MVC. 333/1985 on 19.6.1985 awarding an interim compensation of Rs. 15,000/- u/s 92-A of the M.V.Act, 1939 (the Act for short) to the claimants-respondents herein and directing the owner of the motor vehicle involved in the accident and the insurer to pay the said compensation within two months from the date of the order.
The main ground of attack by the appellant is that the applicant has not based his claim on tort and hence the claim is not maintainable before the Tribunal. In other words, the contention is that the compensation for the death of the deceased employee under the owner of the motor vehicle which met with the accident, in the instant case, ought to have been claimed under the Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923 (the Act of 1923 for short) and hence the compensation granted under the Act by the Tribunal cannot be sustained. We do not think there is any force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant.
Section 110-AA of the Act clinches the issue. Perusal of the same makes it clear that any person entitled to compensation for the death of, or bodily injury to any person may, without prejudice to the provisions of Chapter VII-A of the Act, claim compensation either under the Act or under the Act of 1923. Therefore, despite claim under either Act for compensation, claim for interim compensation as required u/s 92-A is always open to the claimants.
Therefore, the Tribunal having considered the provisions of Section 92-A of the Act has rightly granted relief in favour of the claimants even though such claimants have chosen to approach the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation. Hence, the awarding of compensation u/s 92-A of the Act in the given case cannot be interfered with. However, it is made clear that in case any compensation of similar nature is made by the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation for the same accident, he shall give deduction of the amounts granted under the order appealed against in this Appeal.
With the above observations, this Appeal stands dismissed. No Costs.