AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The court below has taken the view that the petitioner appellant is not entitled to make a claim under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act in
view of the fact that he has already availed of the benefits under the Employees State Insurance Act. The court below has followed the judgments
of this Court in Mangalamma and Others Vs. Express Newspapers Ltd. and Another, and National Insurance Co. Ltd., Madras Vs. P.
Saraswathi Mohan, . The former is a decision of a Division Bench and the latter is that of a single Judge. In both the cases, it has been held on a
construction of Section 53 of the Act, that, if the claimant is entitled to the benefits of the said Act, he is barred rom claiming any compensation
under any other law including the Motor Vehicles Act.
Learned Counsel submits that in the present case, the claimant was proceeding to his work spot on his own bicycle and the accident could not
be considered to have taken place in the course of his employment. He places reliance on the observations made by the Supreme Court in
Saurashtra Salt Manufacturing Co. Vs. Bai Valu Raja and Others, . In that case, the employee was returning from his work spot to his house.
There, it was held that the accident was not in the course of employment. That ruling will have no bearing on the present case. The section has
been considered by several High Courts.
The expression employment injury has been defined by the Act in Section 2(b) of the Act as a personal injury to an employee caused by accident
or an occupational disease arising out of and in the course of his employment. The term in the course of employment has been considered by the
various High Courts in the following cases :
Sarpounadeen v. E.S.I. Corporation Ahmedabad, 1981 L.I.C. 1653 (Guj), Regional Director E.S.I. Corporation, Bangaore v. L. Ranga Rao v.
1982 I LLJ 29 (Kar), Ajudhee Rai v. R.S.T. Corporation, 1959 M.P. 338, Gajanan Bhan Magat Vs. Employees'' State Insurance Corporation,
and Regional Director E.S.I. Corporation v. Parameshwaram Pillai, 1975 Kerala L.T. 708.
In the above cases, it has been held that if an employee proceeds towards his work spot for the purpose of attending to his work and if any
accident occurs, it is certainly an accident in the course of employment and that he is entitled to the benefits of the Employees State Insurance Act.
In this case, the claimant has already availed of the benefits of the Act and he cannot claim compensation under the provisions of the Motor
Vehicles Act.
Learned Counsel for the appellant contends that Section 53 of the Employees State Insurance Act is unconstitutional land ultra vires the powers
of the Parliament. It is not open to him to raise that contention, as the appellant has already availed himself of the benefits of the Act. The Judgment
of the Division Bench in Mangalamma v. Express News Papers Ltd., already referred to decide that point also. In view of the said judgment,
which is binding on me, I cannot entertain the objection raised by the appellant.
In the circumstances there is no merit in the appeal and it is dismissed.
Learned Counsel submits that the appellant should be permitted to make a claim for compensation under the provisions of the Employees State
Insurance Act. If any such claim is still available to him and if the law permits the same, it will be open to makes such a claim.