Dual Claims Under MV Act and Workman's Compensation Act Impermissible: Rajasthan High Court Orders Refund To Insurer
The Rajasthan High Court has asserted that claimants cannot be allowed to claim compensation both under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“MV Act”) and the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (“WC Act”), for the same accident, and opined that once the compensation was received under one Act, filing subsequent claim under another Act was abuse of the process of law.The bench of Justice...
The Rajasthan High Court has asserted that claimants cannot be allowed to claim compensation both under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“MV Act”) and the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (“WC Act”), for the same accident, and opined that once the compensation was received under one Act, filing subsequent claim under another Act was abuse of the process of law.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand rejected the argument that compensation awarded by one forum could be adjusted against the amount awarded by another, and observed that the Courts could not be treated as a bargaining forum.
“Such argument of the counsel for the claimants-respondents has no force because the Courts cannot be treated as a bargaining forums and the claimants cannot be allowed to approach two different forums and if they feel that they have not got sufficient amount of compensation then for getting more compensation they can approach the subsequent forum.”
The Court was hearing appeals filed by the National Insurance Company Limited, in two different claim petitions, challenging the award passed by the Workman Compensation Commissioner in favour of the claimants when the claimants had already obtained compensation under the MV Act.
In both the cases, the dependents filed claim petitions before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and received favourable awards, wherein the petitioner was ordered to pay compensation. Thereafter, the dependents also filed petitions under the WC Act which was also allowed. Hence, the appeals were filed before the Court against the latter orders.
It was the case of the petitioner that as per Section 167 of the MV Act, the dependents were entitled to avail only one remedy, either under the MV Act, or under the WC Act, and could not be allowed to avail two distinct and parallel remedies for getting two different awards.
On the contrary, it was argued by the respondents that in both the claim petitions, the prayer was made against different parties. While under the MV Act, the prayer was against the offending vehicle, under the WC Act, it was against the employer. Hence, they were entitled to submit both the claim petitions.
Further, it was submitted that the amount of compensation by one tribunal could be adjusted by the subsequent one.
After hearing the contentions, while underscoring Section 167 of the MV Act, the Court held that the doctrine of election required that when two remedies were available for same relief, the aggrieved party had to elect one of those, and could not choose both.
“The “doctrine of election” is a branch of “rule of estoppel”, in terms whereof a person may be precluded by his actions or conduct or silence when it is his duty to speak, from asserting a right which he otherwise would have had.”
While rejecting the argument of the respondents of the subsequent tribunal adjusting the compensation awarded by the first tribunal, the Court held that the claimants could not be allowed to take double benefit of two claims filed under two different statutes by approaching two different forums if they feel that they did not get sufficient compensation.
Accordingly, the successive claim petition by the claimants under the WC Act was set aside by the Court, and the claimants were directed to refund the amounts received, with interest, to the Insurance Company.
Title: National Insurance Company Ltd. v Manju Bai & Ors., and anr. connected petition
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 41