KALAWATI Vs. BALWANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An interesting question of law arises in this F.A.F.O. S.110-AA of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 bars a claimant from claiming compensation both under S.110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the M. V. Act) and under S.3(i) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the Compensation Act). The point raised by the learned counsel is that the claimant is under no such bar where the claimant has different causes of action and the claim is made against two different persons under the aforesaid two acts. In other words, the contention is that the claimant is not to be precluded from making an application under S.110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act where the owner of the vehicle is a person other than the employer of the victim involved in the accident. The argument is that since the compensation was not being claimed against the same person twice, but from two different persons, the bar of S.110 AA of the M. V. Act will not be attracted.

(2.) Before we advert to the question raised it will be proper to refer to the facts material for the disposal of this appeal.

(3.) The deceased Ramphal was involved in an accident; he was a conductor of a Bus No. USD 7880 owned by S. Balwant Singh; while he was supervising the unloading of passengers luggage from the roof, another vehicle, a truck No. PNN 6035, owned by Sardar Singh dashed against the vehicle USD 7880 from the rear as a result of which Ramphal was crushed to death on the spot. The claimant, Smt. Kalawati is the widow of Ramphal deceased. She filed a claim under the Compensation Act. This claim was allowed and she was awarded Rs. 9000/- as compensation by an order D/-20-10-1975 against S. Balwant Singh, his employer. Subsequently Smt. Kalawati made a claim under the M. V. Act for Rs. 50000/- against Respondent No. 1 Sardar Singh, owner of the vehicle PNN 6035 and also against the Insurer, National Insurance Company Limited. Both the respondents resisted the claim on a variety of grounds but they pressed the ground that the claim was not maintainable in law as she had received compensation under the Compensation Act and that S.110-AA of the M. V. Act barred the claim. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal framed issue No. 4 on this point and tried the said issue as a preliminary issue. The Tribunal held by its order D/-30-11-1977 that the claim was barred under S.110-AA of the M. V. Act since she had received compensation under the Compensation Act. The petition was consequently dismissed with costs. It is against the above decision that the present appeal has been filed under S.110-D of the M. V. Act.