RADHABAI BHIKAJI Vs. BALURAM DALURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the claimant (dependent mother) of an employee suffering a fatal accident by being run over by a motor truck while in the employment of the defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 who run a touring cinema. The order appealed from is that of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner who has rejected the claim for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act on the ground that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal had already granted to the claimant compensation of Rs. 3,600-00 and she would not be entitled to compensation twice over.

(2.) THE facts of the case are simple and are common grounds. The deceased workman was a cleaner in a truck owned by there employers?respondents Nos. 1. 2 and 3 (respondent No. 4 being the insurance company ). The boy met with a fatal accident while working in that capacity. There is, therefore, no doubt that the employer would be liable to pay compensation both under the Workmen's Compensation Act and under the Motor Vehicles Act. At the first instance the mother dependent went to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. It held the employers liable. In arriving at the figure the Tribunal applied the formula given in the Schedule to the Workmen's Compensation Act. The monthly wages were found on facts to be Rs. 60-00. It appears that while the cleaner was out in the moving truck the employer alto used to feed him; but that was excluded because it was not really part of the wages and was ex gratia. On that basis compensation of Rs. 3,6000-00 was awarded.

(3.) NOW the claimant cams to the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner and wanted to be compensated over again. The Commissioner noticed the fact that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal had already awarded and, as it turns out, awarded precisely the. same amount as the Commissioner himself would have awarded had he held the employer liable. In his view, no claimant wan entitled to damages twice over and accordingly he dismissed the claim.