Claimants Can't Be Allowed To Take Double Benefit Of Two Claims Filed Under Two Different Statutes i.e. Motor Vehicle Act & Workmen's Compensation Act, Rajasthan HC

The Rajasthan High Court observed that the claimants cannot be allowed to take double benefit of two claims filed under two different statutes i.e. under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. It was added that the claimant has to choose one forum only and after choosing a forum, he cannot be allowed to choose another forum to get more benefits. In this appeal, the court dealt with the issue 'Whether the claimants-appellants can file two parallel claim petitions for getting compensation under section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act of 1988')?' Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, ordered, "In view of the settled position of law, it is clear that the claimants cannot be allowed to take double benefit of two claims filed under two different statutes i.e. under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The claimant has to choose one forum only and after choosing a forum, he cannot be allowed to choose another forum to get more benefits. The claimants cannot claim double benefit under both the enactments." Essentially, The claimants-appellants filed a claim petition before MACT seeking compensation on account of the death of Ramlal who died in an accident on 07.11.1991. It was pleaded in the claim petition that at the time of accident, deceased Ramlal was working as a driver and because of his sudden demise in the aforesaid accident, his dependents (appellants) suffered not only economic loss but also deprived from his love, affection and care. However, respondent No.2-Insurance Company objected that the claimants-appellants have already got compensation from the Workmen Compensation Commissioner. The Tribunal, while dismissing the claimants-appellant's petition, held that since the claimants-appellants have already got compensation under Section 22 of the Act of 1923, hence, they are not entitled to file subsequent application for getting compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act in view of Section 167 of the Act of 1988. Feeling aggrieved, the claimants-appellants have filed the present appeal. The court observed that appellants-claimants have got compensation by invoking the provisions of the Act of 1923. Therefore, the subsequent claim filed by the claimants under the Act of 1988 was liable to be rejected and the same was rightly rejected by the Tribunal, added the court. It was observed that the claimants-appellants have no force in their contention that they can avail both the remedies under these two different enactments and the amount of compensation awarded by one forum can be adjusted in the amount awarded by different forums. In this regard, the court opined, "Courts cannot be treated as a bargaining forum and the claimants cannot be allowed to approach two forums and if they feel that they have not got sufficient amount of compensation then for getting more compensation they can approach the another forum." The court also relied on the Apex Court's decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mastan, which observed that the 'doctrine of election' postulates that when two remedies are available for the same relief, the aggrieved party has the option to elect either of them but not both. Although there are certain exceptions to the same rule, the same has no application in the instant case, added the court. The court pursued that Section 167 of the Act of 1988 provides for an option to the claimant stating that where the death of, or bodily injury to any person gives rise to a claim for compensation under the Act of 1988 as also under the Act of 1923, the person entitled to compensation may without prejudice to the provisions of Chapter X claim such compensation under either of those Acts but not under both. Section 167 contains a non obstante clause providing for such an option notwithstanding anything contained in the Act of 1923, added the court. The court opined that "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. The counsel for the claimants-appellants submitted that the doctrine of election provided for in Section 167 of the Act,1988 does not apply where the claimants have right to proceed against the employer under the Act, 1923 and against the tortfeasor; a different person under the provisions of the Act, 1988. He further submitted that the bar under Section 167 of the Act, 1988 is only against the availing of two remedies against the same employer under both the enactments. He also submitted that the respondents in both the claim petitions were different even though the insurance company was common, the insurance company cannot be absolved from its liability to pay compensation under...

Claimants Can't Be Allowed To Take Double Benefit Of Two Claims Filed Under Two Different Statutes i.e. Motor Vehicle Act & Workmen's Compensation Act, Rajasthan HC

ANIRUDH VIJAY

Tags