- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Neelabai Mahadeo Salunke And Others v. Shamrao Tatoba Pawar And Others
Structured Summary of the Opinion
Factual and Procedural Background
On 31 March 1980 Arjun Mahadeo Salunkhe died in a tractor accident. At the time of the accident he was in the employment of respondent No. 1. On 20 October 1983 his mother, Smt. Neelabai Mahadeo Salunkhe, on behalf of herself and two brothers, filed a claim for compensation under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sangli (Motor Accident Claim No. 35 of 1980), claiming Rs. 60,000. Parties impleaded included the alleged driver (Laxmanrao A. Chavan), owners and two insurance companies.
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal framed issues including whether the accident was caused by the tractor driven rashly and negligently by opponent No.1 and whether the deceased himself was driving at the time. The Tribunal answered the first issue negatively and the second affirmatively, concluding that the applicants had not proved actionable negligence by any other person and that the deceased might have been driving. Consequently the Tribunal dismissed the claim under section 110-A.
Separately, the appellants filed Workmen's Compensation Case (LCS) No. 1 of 1980 under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 claiming compensation from the employer (and/or insurer). The learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, by an order dated 8 January 1986, dismissed the Workmen's Compensation application as not maintainable invoking section 110‑AA of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The present appeal challenges that order.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether section 110‑AA of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 bars a claim for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 where the dependents previously filed a claim under section 110‑A of the Motor Vehicles Act but the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dismissed that claim on the ground that the deceased himself was driving (i.e., no actionable negligence by owner/driver)?
- Whether merely having instituted a claim under section 110‑A (even if misconceived or dismissed for lack of a cause of action under the Motor Vehicles Act) precludes the dependents from maintaining a separate claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act?
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants' Arguments
- The appellants (represented by Shri G.R. Rege) relied on the ratio in B. Prabhakar v. Smt. Bachima (AIR 1984 Karnataka 225) to submit that where the accident was found to be caused by the deceased himself (i.e., no actionable negligence by owner/driver), a claim under section 110‑A could not be entertained and consequently section 110‑AA would not bar a claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act; therefore the Workmen's Compensation application was maintainable.
Respondent No. 2's Arguments
- Respondent No. 2 (represented by Shri Apte) relied upon Anthony Lobo v. C.M. Merchant (1979 Lab. I.C. 61) to support the proposition that a claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act can be barred by section 110‑AA. Respondent No. 2 also contended that the Motor Accident Claim was rejected on merits and therefore section 110‑AA was attracted.
- The respondent argued that because the Tribunal dismissed Motor Accident Claim No. 35 of 1980 on its merits (finding the deceased to have been the negligent driver), the statutory bar in section 110‑AA should apply to preclude the Workmen's Compensation claim.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| B. Prabhakar v. Smt. Bachima, AIR 1984 Karnataka 225 | The Claims Tribunal cannot entertain a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act (section 110‑A) unless the accident was caused by actionable negligence of owner/driver. Where the deceased himself was the negligent driver, no claim under section 110‑A lies and section 110‑AA will not be attracted; dependents' claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act would be maintainable. | The Court treated this authority as directly on point, agreed with its ratio and relied on it in holding that section 110‑AA does not bar the Workmen's Compensation claim when the Motor Accident Tribunal found the deceased to have been driving (i.e., there was no valid cause of action under the Motor Vehicles Act). |
| Anthony Lobo v. C.M. Merchant, 1979 Lab. I.C. 61 | Applied section 110‑AA to bar a Workmen's Compensation claim where the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had already awarded compensation (i.e., preventing double recovery). | The Court observed this decision but distinguished it: in Anthony Lobo the Tribunal had awarded compensation (double recovery issue), whereas in the present case the Tribunal dismissed the Motor Vehicles claim and awarded no compensation. The Court therefore did not follow Anthony Lobo for the present facts. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court analysed section 110‑AA of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and concluded that it applies only where the death or bodily injury in question gives rise to a valid claim for compensation under both the Motor Vehicles Act and the Workmen's Compensation Act. The statutory purpose of section 110‑AA is to prevent double recovery where a valid claim exists under both enactments.
The Court reasoned that if the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal could not entertain a claim under section 110‑A because there was no actionable negligence by an owner or driver (for example, where the deceased himself was driving), then there was no valid claim under the Motor Vehicles Act in respect of that death. In that situation section 110‑AA cannot be invoked to bar a separate claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
The Court further emphasised that the criteria for liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act (section 3 providing statutory liability of the employer if death or injury is caused by an accident arising out of and in the course of employment) differ from the criteria for a claim under section 110‑A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Even where the deceased was himself negligently driving, the Workmen's Compensation claim might still be maintainable if the accident occurred in the course of employment.
The Court reviewed the authorities. It accepted the Division Bench decision in B. Prabhakar (AIR 1984 Kar. 225) as directly on point and found it persuasive. The Court distinguished Anthony Lobo (1979 Lab. I.C. 61) on the factual ground that in Anthony Lobo compensation had been awarded by the Tribunal (raising a real double recovery issue), whereas in the present case the Tribunal dismissed the Motor Vehicles claim and awarded nothing.
The Court concluded that the Commissioner's formulation—that once a claim is made before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal no claim could thereafter be made under the Workmen's Compensation Act—was too wide and legally incorrect. Instead, the correct approach is first to determine whether the death or injury gave rise to a valid claim under the Motor Vehicles Act as well as under the Workmen's Compensation Act; only if valid claims under both Acts exist would section 110‑AA operate to prevent successive claims.
Holding and Implications
Holding: APPEAL ALLOWED. The finding of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation that the Workmen's Compensation application was not maintainable under section 110‑AA is set aside; the Workmen's Compensation application is held to be maintainable.
Implications:
- The direct consequence for the parties is that the Workmen's Compensation proceedings (LCS No. 1 of 1980) are remanded to the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation to decide the remaining issues on merits and in accordance with law.
- The Court directed that, because the matter is old, the Commissioner should endeavour to dispose of the application on merits within six months from the date of the judgment of this Court, as far as possible.
- The Registrar, High Court, Appellate Side, was directed to return the record to the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation within one month along with an ordinary authenticated copy of the order; issue of a certified copy was ordered expedited.
- The opinion does not purport to lay down any broader, novel principle beyond applying the existing statutory interpretation and authorities cited; its immediate effect is to permit the workmen's compensation claim to proceed to merits in this case (i.e., no double recovery issue arises here because the motor claim was dismissed and no compensation awarded).
Disposition: Appeal allowed; proceedings remanded to the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation for further adjudication on merits.
1. This appeal involves consideration of important question of law relating to interpretation and application of section 110-AA of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
2. This is an appeal by the original applicants against an order dated 8th January, 1986 passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation in Workmen's Compensation Case No. (LCS) 1 of 1980. By the impugned order, the learned Commissioner dismissed the above referred application as not maintainable in law by invoking section 110-AA of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
3. section 110-AA of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 reads as under:—
“110-AA. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923), where the death of or bodily injury to any person gives rise to a claim for compensation under this Act and also under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) the person entitled to compensation (may, without prejudice to the provisions of Chapter VIIA claim such compensation) under either of those Acts but not under both”.
4. One Arjun Mahadeo Salunkhe died as a result of an accident which took place on 31st March, 1980. At the time of the accident the deceased was in the employment of respondent No. 1. On 20th October, 1983, Smt. Neelabai Mahadeo Salunkhe (i.e the mother of the deceased) on behalf of herself and two of the brothers of the deceased by name Kumar Mahdev Salunkhe and Babasaheb Salunkhe made a claim for compensation before the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Sangli, numbered as Motor Accident Claim No. 35 of 1980. By the application made under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the said applicants claimed compensation of Rs. 60,000/- in view of death of the deceased Arjun Mahadeo caused as a result of the tractor accident which took place on 31st March, 1980. Shri Laxmanrao A. Chavan, Shri Shamrao Tatoba Pawar, the New India Insurance Company Ltd. and The Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. were impleaded as party respondents in the said application. At the trial of the said application filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sangli various issues were framed. The first two issues framed at the hearing of the said application are reproduced hereinafter:
“1. Whether the applicants prove that the accident which resulted in the death of Arjun Mahadeo Salunkhe was caused due to rash and negligent driving of tractor No. MTK-9130 by opponent No. 1 (i.e Laxmanrao A Chavan) on the noon of 31-3-1980 ?”
“2. Whether Opponent No. 2, owner of the tractor, proves that the said Arjun Mahadeo Salunkhe was himself driving the tractor at the time of the accident?”
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal answered issue No. 1 in the negative and issue No. 2 in the affirmative. In para. 14 of its judgment, the Tribunal observed that the burden or proof that the deceased had died due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor by some other person i.e other than the deceased, was on the applicants themselves. The Tribunal further observed that the applicants had not led any evidence to discharge their burden. The Tribunal held that the deceased himself might be driving the tractor as shown in the police panchanama relating to the above referred accident. In the result, the Tribunal dismissed the said application for compensation made by the applicants (appellants herein) under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
5. In the above referred Workmen's Compensation Case (LCS) No. 1 of 1980, the appellants are claiming compensation from one or the other respondents under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The question before the learned Commissioner was as to whether the said claim was barred under section 110-AA of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 in view of the appellants having already filed the above referred claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sangli vide Motor Accident Claim No. 35 of 1980 and the said claim having been dismissed by the Tribunal.
6. Section 110-AA was inserted in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 by Amending Act 56 of 1969. The said section is applicable only where the death or bodily injury caused to a person gives rise to a valid claim for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 as well as a claim for compensation under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The said section prohibits the applicants from making double recovery of compensation by invoking both the Acts. If the application for compensation made before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is rejected on the ground that the deceased himself was negligently driving the tractor in question it can hardly be said that the death of the deceased gave rise to a valid claim for compensation under Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. If the claim for compensation made under Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 could not be entertained by the Claims Tribunal for want of valid cause of action or for want of proof in respect of negligence of the driver causing the accident as alleged, section 110-AA of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 can never be applied so as to bar the claim for compensation under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. Even if the deceased was himself negligently driving the tractor leading to the accident in question, the claim for compensation under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 may be still maintainable against the employer concerned or against the insurance company if the deceased died as a result of an accident which took place during the course of employment of the deceased. Section 3 of Workmen's Compensation Act provides for statutory liability of the employer to pay compensation to the workman or his dependents if the death or personal injury is caused by accident arising out of and in the course of employment of the workman concerned. The criteria to be applied for determination of an application for compensation under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 is somewhat different than the criteria to be applied for determination of a claim for compensation under section 110-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
7. I shall now refer to a Division Bench judgment of the High Court of Karnataka dealing with the same question which has arisen before this Court in this appeal. In B. Prabhakar v. Smt. Bachima, AIR 1984 Karnataka 225, the Karnataka High Court analysed the provisions of law contained in section 110-A as well as section 110-AA of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The Court held that no claim for compensation under Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 could be entertained by the Claims Tribunal unless the accident had occurred due to actionable negligence of the owner or the driver of the vehicle causing injury or death of third party. The Court held that when the accident occurred due to actionable negligence of the deceased himself being the driver, no claim by his legal representative could be entertained by the Claims Tribunal under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Court held that in such a case section 110-AA of the Act would not be attracted and the claim made by the dependents of the deceased before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation would be maintainable. This authority is directly on the point which has arisen for consideration of this Court in this appeal. Shri G.R Rege, the learned counsel for the appellants has rightly relied upon the ratio of this decision in support of his submission that the impugned order is incorrect and the application made by the appellants for compensation invoking Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 was maintainable in law and that the said application was not barred by section 110-AA of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. As against this, Shri Apte, the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has invited attention of the Court to the judgment of Single Judge of this Court in the case of Anthony Lobo v. C.M Merchant*, 1979 Lab. I.C 61. In this case, Vaidya, J. speaking for the Court held that the claim made by the applicants before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation was barred under section 110-AA of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 for the circumstances set out in the said judgment. In this case, the dependents of the deceased had already made a claim for compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the compensation was already awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants concerned. This case is thus clearly distinguishable. In our case, no compensation was awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the question of double recovery does not arise. I am in respectful agreement with the ratio of the above referred judgment of Division Bench of High Court of Karnataka in the case reported in AIR 1984 Kar. 225.
8. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has submitted that Motor Accident Claim No. 35 of 1980 was not rejected for lack of jurisdiction but was rejected on merits. The learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has submitted that the bar created by section 110-aa of the above referred act was thus clearly attracted. The language of section 110-AA of the Act is clear and specific on this aspect. In this case, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held that the death of the deceased Arjun Mahadeo did not give rise to a claim for compensation under Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 as the deceased was himself negligently driving the tractor. In substance, the Tribunal held that the appellants had no cause of action for making the claim for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. In view of the above, I have no hesitation in rejecting this submission of the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.
9. The learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation held that the party had a choice to make a claim before either of the two forums and once the claim was made before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, no claim could be made for compensation in respect of the same accident invoking Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The proposition formulated by trial Court is too wide and is incorrect. In my opinion, the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation was clearly in error. In the first instance it is required to be decided as to whether the death or bodily injury in question gave rise to a claim for compensation under Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 as well as a claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The dependents of the deceased may not be aware about the cause for the death of the deceased and may not be able to prove that the deceased had died as a result of an accident which occurred due to actionable negligence of the owner or the driver concerned. In such a situation it shall have to be held that the remedy of filing a claim for compensation under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was misconceived by the dependents of the deceased and the applicants could not lawfully make a claim for compensation under section 110-A of the Act. In such a case, neither section 110-A of the Act is attracted nor section 110-AA can be invoked.
10. In the result the appeal is allowed. The finding recorded by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation to the effect that the application made by the claimants under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 was not maintainable in law and is set aside.
11. The application is held to be maintainable. The proceedings are remanded to the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation for deciding the remaining issues on merits and in accordance with law. Since this is an old matter, the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation should endeavour to dispose of the above referred application on merits within six months from today as far as possible.
12. The Registrar, High Court, Appellate Side, is directed to return the record to the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation immediately and not later than one month from today along with an ordinary copy of the order of this Court duly authenticated by the Shirastedar of this Court.
13. Issue of certified copy expedited.
Appeal allowed.
Alert