The Divisional Manager vs Shri Mehboobsab on 11 September, 2008

MFA 9890/2007

No.457[2()O3 for the injuries caused in the safl "
that the Tribunal by its juriment and award AV

awarded compensation in a sum of :7:

interest at 6% pa. and that the
had deposited the said amount in on 14«. it
contended that the claimanfl i4:i11. "tAt: 1'Tc: «game cause of

action maintain another claimeehefcinev 'thee'

4. The the question raised
regazdiag the. befoxe him has held
that the cleimant ; compensation before
either of the before both and hence the
mount fag§§a1d,ed i;y»:1§eM§inr Accident Claims’ Tribunal in a
with interest was ordered to be

n'(ie.–:”a1nount detenmn’ ed as compensation

” payable “-by per the provisions of the Workmerfs
.. 1 Act. In arriving at this decision, the
has drawn support: from the judgment reported
% AG! 1759 in the case of GITJARAT sum new
zzeansmxr comroxarmx vs. mmmnu menu:
‘:’uRUPPURA & 0%.

?”””””‘” W mmfiiflm WWW W’W?m_= KARNATAKA mow COURT o? MMMAKA mow cotmr or MRNAYAM HIGH
~ com? or :<AmAm<A HIGH comm"

MFA 9890 / 2007

5. On fhcts, the Commissioner found
ciaimant was aged 21 years and was
month as a. cleaner. Taking note of the Véevioience ‘V

and the permanent physical fhe
Commissioner found that ”

capacity to an extent of VA the relevant
factor namely 222.r?1′.L%l:~4fdeterroined as

oompcnsation ~ 4′ -Z V.

6. appellant-Insurance
Company that as per Section 167 of
the Motor, Section 3(5) of the Woficmcn’s
proceedings instituted before the

..::Workmen’s Compensation were iilegal and

and the Commissioner could not have

to pass the awaxvd under challenge.

_ V_ on the judgment rendered by the Division
_Beno1 1; Court in the case of rm mmanm mnscmx.
in 11.12 (19877 1 ms 142. He has also relied on the

%/W

W-“””45>’\>’3*””trfi'<M'"'fi nwwymaé <'m<-%,»w'w*:m.:é mews" mmrmmmwmnmfi §§""HW.;W"i R Wm?" W?' §"\:..M%{NME
" "' ~ fifififl WMQW QQUR?

MFA 9390/200′?

judgment reported in AIR 2008 (NBC) 1428 of the V.

of Chattishgarh. ‘

7. Learned counsel appearing , fr ”

Sri.Hulcppa Hcroor stmngly thfit
the purpose behind the
Act, which is a welfare the award
passed by the He
submits that ;_1:>’tWpe1’n:3itted to avail
the and so long as he is
made to ‘ as determined by the

Commissione1;”f9 r W6’1*l;ii1¢n*s:_”..’Compcnsa5iaon by dcducting the

was by the Claims’ Tribunal under the

Vehicles Act, there is no justi%tion for

V mmemm order passed by the Commissioner. He
VV has on the decision Itmdcmd by the High Court
5§w,i’V:r.»:sar;11;ya;”éradesh in the case of u.p.m.ma mnmmax
:1 & otrmms vs. %r.mA1& oamns (1990
_'(3~-?:’.A.C. 269). Reliance is also piaced on the judgment

LL 3 “‘if:ndered by the High Court of Punjab and Haxyana in the case

of PAWAN KUHAR VS. , WDRKHEIPS

513%/.

MFA 9890 /200′?’

T..A.C. 41 (rang).

8. Having heard the learned

upon consideration of the an ” L’

question that arises for ».,_

“Whether the jusizfied

in holding ma: the (A3lo_it.r_c:*V.PetiAtim1 ji’Iec”i’V-.1;’:-efore him

was the

9. Secttiton H-V(v§V<V')vn1pcnsation Act pmvnd' es
for the cmglpycfis' '~ jiaying compensation. If any

persona} Wofklflag. by an aoc1d' ant arising

I-'flu: OfV':f.!£id3«.iIt thg his employment, ifs empioycr shall

in accordance with the pmviasions

— VV Section 305) of the Act reads as under.

V ‘Nofliing herein contained shall be deemed ta corgfer
., A’ ‘arpy fight to compensation on a workman in rmpect
‘gang irgfury ifhe has instituted in (I aim”: Court a
suitfor damages in respect ofthe injury against the
employer or any other person; and no suit for
damagesshalibemaintainablebyaworkmanin
any court of law in respect of any injury, –

55

:L’UUR”I’ UK” KIWKNATAKA Hifiii CGXERI mmmmm. Hififi COURT OF Kfli?NATAl(A Hififl CGIJRT OF KARNATAKA WGH COURT OF KKRNATAKA HIGH COURT

MFA 9890/2007

fa) ffhe has instituted £1 cfaim to

respect ofthe injury before a Cmrnrrtissionerjor .A ”

10. It is thus clear from the ions ” L’

that if the workman had no soit forxiofinagcs in
a Civil Court in respect of the employer
or any other Pfimflfi’ file Workmcn’s
Compensation right on such
workman to the provisions of
the Act. of the Workmcn’s
Compcnsatiog Act a claim is made before the

Competozzt fh.o §.vorm1aa, no suit fir damages is

b”y._a wofkmanv’ “”” in any Court of Law in respect of

:foz:Aw3iic:1§_jhe has already instituted a claim before the

mmggmnq; flffiic object behind the provision is amply clear,
o particuiar Forum is chosen by the workman
Civil Law or under the Special Legislation namely
.._Wor§§meo’s Compensation Act, it will not be open for him to opt

‘éforuthc other Forum. The legislative intent is clear and

. muuiflfl In

W… Ww…;__.,_r mmnmm rum-1 cow? 9? MRNATAM men COURT or mnmmm Hm” comm or xAmAm<A i-HGH calm

MFA 9390/2007
1 1

nor is permitted as per the provisions referred to .,
On the other hand, this is precisely what is 4. "
prevented by enacting the provisions under.Secfi26Vfi i3
Workmen's Compensation Act and
Vehicles Act. Reliance placed by* the

judgment of the Madhya Pradesh (2f}T.A.C.
269 is not apt to the case 011: ease claim
for compensation was the Motor

Accident Claims' gtvhenythe under the

Worlcxnenfs It is therefore
observed the before the Commissioner for
Work1nen's Vfinot have been maintained
when the the Motor Vehicles Act was
&'V1'ribunal. In paragraph-12 of the
Court has however observed that there

_ *was Before the Court to disclose how the
to be before the Commissioner for
Compensation. Keeping in mind, the fact that the

was an illiterate lady and her chfidzen were minors

she was fighting for compensation ibr the death of her

wwwmi wr mmmwimmmm Hmifi COFJRTf5.{3_§ Kflgwh-{AKA R36" COMM. F
0 KARNATAKA Hflfifi»-3 COURYOF KMNNKKA HIGH COUR? OF KAM*fATAKA HIGH CGUXT

MFA 93%/2007
12

husband, the High Court held that the amount

claimants under the Work1:m=:n’s Compcfggusafioxz ‘4 ” = ‘V

deducted from the amount of the ‘V s

Accident Claims’ Tribunal. Thcmfong, tbs tiie ,

said decision does not in any cams of the
(ftimhis . \’

14. with regard ta-the ACJ 1759
in the case nwvspom’
s-smriamsnax xvrwm &
o1mRs, on =whi¢1§~:§:ej–ms:jsisg:oner has placed reliance, it is

necessary tcf o1′.u1t’_ the facts and circumstances

.v.i.:;:;voIvc::1iA:.ifi1 “the were totally difiemnt inasmuch as the

of the deceased had not instituted any

‘Vibe Worlmcxfs Compensafion Act, but the

V cmpldjfcr dsposiwd the amounf which was liable to be paid’
H H ” _’thc pfovisi<Ins of the Work:mcn's Compensation Act. The

' 'nafiresentatives had received the said amount but had

V? proceedings only under the pmvisions of the Motor

" 'Vehicies Act. Under such circumstances, the Division Bench of

the Gujarat High Court held that it cannot be said that the

W

Snfiflfifififi

vr zwmwmmofl mun §(&RMA"3"fiKfit MG" CQUW' 0? WARNAYAKA H36?! COURT OF KfiRNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA mew EOUW

MFA 9390/2007
14 '

stipulated time. In depositing the said
purported to discharge his stamto1y.:ob}é.g:atioh"ttfiiieg-'.th§?f.laiV.'«
If that amount were to be paid to 15¢

said was that such payment the V L'

compensation awaniable tinder T. under
the Motor vehicles Act. . Secfimn I IOAA
of the Motor Vehicles because the
claimants Secfion IIOAA of

the Motor '

15. are ciifiezent. The im1ued’

c1ann’ ant h.-35 the remedy under the provisions

of thefltlotor 1988. Hence, the hm’ oontained

of the Motor Vehicles Act is applicable.

Hemgoinetgeo the law Laid ciown by this Court as refenecl

to and in the wake of the provisions contained
H H 3(5) of the Workmcds Compensation Act, 1923
K provisions contained under Section 167 of the Motor
Veizticlcs Act, 1933 it is to be ma that the award passed by the

” Commissioner in the instant case is vifiated m the ciaimt

was not entitled to initiate parallel proceedings by involdng the

%/

W…”..m W Wmmmmw newt”! Mmm w- twafiwmfiflfifi WWW agmmzf mfi mfimmm Mmét mm’2§*”‘”

MFA 9890/2200’?

15

Pmvisions of the Workzttnexfs Compfinsahion Act» N %fit4Y .
elected to initiate proceedings undf-.r””ti1ct 2 ‘

Hence, I have no hesitation to hold

the Commissioner is illegal

15. It is unfortunatcv 11% who has
sufietved injury in a scnsififite in his vertebra
and is found his claim made
heron-. the in dctcxminafion of
compensation. “a R”§.’2§,000/–. It is not fin’ this
Court or otherwise of the award

passed by Claims’ ‘I’ribu;na1. It is open to

_.._thc ton’ challgngc the award passed by the Motor

bcfom the proper Appellate Forum by

5 of delay in presenting the appwl in

.accoItiancé: law, particularly having Began?! to the pcndency

W t112′:__1§c ‘ s in this appeal. This observation is

having regard to the unfortunate situation in

V the claimant finds himself due to the wmng advise given
“to him.

%

mgr KARWATAKA W63-E CGURY 0? amammm WGW COURT OF KfiRNATAKA HIGH CGKSRT OF KARNATflKA

HWH CORR’?

n-cur-war-umw”€e il”l’W~2FiE’1 Vat?’-5&3

MFA 9890/2002?

16

17. In the result and for the foregoing, this a;3§éai ‘i:é
The: onier passed by the WV:0rkmé11’s’ j AV
Compensation is set aside.

costs. Amount in deposit

the appellant– Insurance A” ” V . _ ‘ ” « .. _

sd/..

Judge

XX