MAROTI SHRAWAN MANGHATE Vs. SMT. RITA Y. SAPRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal preferred under Section 30(1)(a) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (in short, "WC Act") challenging the legality and correctness of the award passed by the learned Commissioner in W.C.A. No.26/2003 on 21st July, 2005 thereby rejecting the claim for compensation for sustaining of permanent disability by the appellant.

(2.) The case of the appellant was that he was a driver appointed by the respondent No.1 to drive the truck bearing registration No.MH314091 owned by her in the year 1991. This truck was then insured with the respondent No.2. The appellant was engaged to drive this vehicle for transporting the goods between different places. On 22.3.1991, the appellant was discharging his duty as a driver on this truck and thus he was in the course of employment of the respondent No.1. While he was driving the truck from Tumsar to Nagpur on National Highway No.7, he came to a spot near Petrol Pump at Kandri, when one truck coming from opposite direction in high speed, collided head on with the truck driven by appellant. The impact of the accident was severe and it caused grievous injuries to the head and the forelimbs of the appellant. The appellant's right paw got severed because of the impact of the accident and it fell down at the spot of accident. Some good Samaritans removed the appellant to the Indira Gandhi Medical College and Hospital, Nagpur for treatment. He remained hospitalized there from 22.3.1991 to 4.4.1991. The appellant came out of the injuries but with loss of his right paw permanently. At that time, the appellant was 22 years of age and earned salary of Rs. 900/per month and also Rs. 50/as a daily allowance and thus his total monthly income was of Rs. 1,350/. The disability that was suffered by the appellant was of permanent nature which was about 50%. As the appellant was in urgent of financial solace, the appellant invoked jurisdiction of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short, "MV Act") and got Rs. 12,000/as compensation on no fault principle. So, a claim for receiving further compensation from the respondent of Rs. 1,49,424.75 was filed by the appellant.

(3.) A common written statement objecting to the claim was filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2. The main resistance was on the ground that after having opted for remedy under the provisions of MV Act, the appellant was barred from approaching the forum available under the WC Act for claiming compensation in terms of provisions of the WC Act. The basis for this objection was sought to be found in Section 167 of the MV Act.