N N KASHYAP Vs. RATTI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,Delhi, dated 31.7.1973. After making an award in favour of the appellant for a sum of Rs. 11,765.00 the Tribunal dismissed the claim on the ground that appellant had already secured compensation of Rs. 7,560.00 from the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation. On interpretation of section 3 (5) (a) of the Workmen's Compensation Act the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the petition under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act was not maintainable. It is this finding of the Tribunal which is challenged in this appeal;

(2.) Section 3 (5) (a) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 reads:

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant argues that Accidents Claims Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act is not a civil court within the meaning of section 3 (5) (a) of the Workmen's Compensation Act and hence an application under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act was maintainable. In any case the counsel argues that for a sum exceeding to one granted under the Workmen's Compensation Act, there is no bar to claim compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. Before the passing of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 liability to pay compensation on sustaining an injury was in the field of common law. It was a branch of law of negligence in common law. This was governed by the general principles of law of Torts. A victim of an injury had a normal civil law remedy to be preferred in the common law courts. In India the remedies were preferred before the civil courts.