VIMAL Vs. MANSHARAM SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SAMBHAJI Bajirao Jadhav, a Senior Assistant, working in the Bhilai Steel Plant, died in an accident when a truck driven by the Respondent No. 1 and owned by the Respondent No. 2, dashed against the scooter driven by him on 4.5.1980. He died an instantaneous death resulting from that accident. On 5.9.1980 the Appellants, as his legal representatives, filed an application under Section 110 -A of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming a sum of Rs. 2,72,800/ - as compensation for the death of Sambhaji Bajirao Jadhav. His pay at the relevant time was Rs. 1,200/ - per month. It so happened that the employer, viz. Bhilai Steel Plant, deposited a sum of Rs. 30,000/ - with the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation for payment to the persons entitled to receive the amount as dependents of deceased Sambhaji Bajirao Jadhav. A public notice was issued pursuant to which the Appellants appeared before him and received a sum of Rs. 19,925/ -. They approached the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation with a petition dated 10.12.1980 which can be found at page 41 of the Paper Book of this case. The fact of receipt of such amount was inserted in the claim petition before Claims Tribunal by an amendment. The Respondent then contested that in view of Section 110 -AA of the Motor Vehicles Act read with Section 3(5) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, the claim petition was not maintainable. The learned Claims Tribunal framed an issue in that behalf and recorded a finding in favour of the Respondents. It has been held that the Appellants elected to follow the remedy for compensation for the death of Jadhav before the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation and, therefore, they were not entitled to prosecute the other remedy through the claim petition made before the Claims Tribunal. The Appellants are aggrieved by the award so delivered dismissing their petition and have filed the present appeal.

(2.) SECTION 3(5) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, is as follows:

(3.) THE learned Claims Tribunal has relied upon a decision of learned single Judge of the Orissa High Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harekrushna Sahu : 1977 ACJ 512 (Orissa). After reproducing the above -mentioned two provisions in the Workmen's Compensation Act and the Motor Vehicles Act, the learned Judge rightly pointed out that the intention of the legislature is to prevent duplication of claim proceedings irrespective of whether the person against whom the claim is made is the same or different. It was pointed out that "he cannot at the same time initiate proceedings for claim in both the forums." The view taken, therefore, is not against the view that we have taken and the view taken by the Karnataka High Court in Geetha's case, 1988 ACJ 251 (Karnataka). The question, as we have said earlier, is one of election which can be done by initiation of proceedings in either of the two forums. Where, however, the claimants initiate proceedings only in one forum and exercise their option and take an election but a certain amount is made available to them although through the media of Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, it cannot be said that the proceedings have been initiated by the claimants in the other forums as well. In another case relied upon by the Claims Tribunal, Trading Engineering v. Nirmala Devi : 1980 ACJ 230 (P and H), the claimant after obtaining an award in her favour from the Claims Tribunal under Section 110 -A of the Motor Vehicles Act filed another application under the Workmen's Compensation Act. It was rightly held that she could not pursue both the remedies under Section 110 -A of the Motor Vehicles Act and as also under the Workmen's Compensation Act. She has to elect one of the two forums.