PAULINE DECRUZE Vs. M F KATHA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the claimants in O.P.No.370 of 1990 against the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Rangareddy District at Saroomagar ('the Tribunal' for brevity).

(2.) A person by name Earnest Cyril Decruze aged about 32 years died in a motor accident occurred on 10-1-1990. His wife and two minor children made an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles him during the course of his employment. The Supreme Court therefore observed as follows: The receipt of the provident fund is a deferred payment within the contribution made by the employee during the tenure of his service. Such employee or his heirs are entitled to receive this amount irrespective of the accidental death. This amount is secured, is certain to be received, while the amount under the Motor Vehicles Act is uncertain and is receivable only on the happening of the event, viz., accident, which may not take place at all. Similarly, family pension is also earned by an employee for the benefit of his family in the form of his contribution in the service in terms of the service conditions receivable by the heirs after his death.

(3.) The Tribunal dismissed the petition on the ground that they are barred from claiming any compensation under Section 53 of the said Act. The Tribunal also relied on a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ch. Vijayalakshmi, 1987 (2) ALT 193 (DB), wherein it was held that when a Lorry Owners Co-operative Society was contributing subscription under the ESI Act for the insurance of its employee under the said Act by virtue of Section 53, the Tribunal under the MV Act is barred to entertain petition for compensation filed by the legal representatives of the deceased employee.